23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Floor and ceiling effects in the OHS: an analysis of the NHS PROMs data set

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          The objective was to examine whether the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) demonstrated a floor or a ceiling effect when used to measure the outcome of hip replacement surgery in a large national cohort.

          Setting

          Secondary database analysis of a national audit conducted in England and Wales on patient undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty in a secondary care setting.

          Participants

          93 253 primary arthroplasty patients completed preoperative OHS questionnaires and 69 361 completed 6-month postoperative OHS questionnaires. The population had a mean age of 67.78 (range 14–100, SD 11.3) and 59% were female.

          Primary Secondary Outcome Measures

          Primary outcome measure was the Oxford Hip Score (OHS). Secondary outcome measures were the OHS-FCS and OHS-PCS. Floor and ceiling effects were considered present if >15% of patients achieved the worst score/floor effect (0/48) or best/ceiling effect (48/48) score.

          Results

          Preoperatively, 0% of patients achieved the best score (48) and 0.1% achieved the worst score (0). Postoperatively, 0.1% patients achieved the worst score, but the percentage achieving the best score increased to 11.6%. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that patients between 50 and 59 years of age had the highest postoperative best score, at 15.3%. The highest postoperative OHS worst score percentage was in a group of patients who had a preoperative OHS above 41/48 at 28%. Furthermore, 22.6% of patients achieved the best postoperative OHS-PCS and 19.9% best postoperative OHS-FCS.

          Conclusions

          Based on NHS PROMS data the overall OHS does not exhibit a ceiling or floor effect and should continue to be used as a valid measure of patient-reported outcomes for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. However, subscale analysis does indicate some limitations in the OHS-PCS and OHS-FCS.

          Trial registration number

          NDORMS. Introducing standardised and evidence-based thresholds for hip and knee replacement surgery. The Arthroplasty Candidacy Help Engine (ACHE tool). HTA Project 11/63/01.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?

          Interest has increased in recent years in incorporating health status measures into clinical practice for use at the individual-patient level. We propose six measurement standards for individual-patient applications: (1) practical features, (2) breadth of health measured, (3) depth of health measured, (4) precision for cross-sectional assessment, (5) precision for longitudinal monitoring and (6) validity. We evaluate five health status surveys (Functional Status Questionnaire, Dartmouth COOP Poster Charts, Nottingham Health Profile, Duke Health Profile, and SF-36 Health Survey) that have been proposed for use in clinical practice. We conducted an analytical literature review to evaluate the six measurement standards for individual-patient applications across the five surveys. The most problematic feature of the five surveys was their lack of precision for individual-patient applications. Across all scales, reliability standards for individual assessment and monitoring were not satisfied, and the 95% CIs were very wide. There was little evidence of the validity of the five surveys for screening, diagnosing, or monitoring individual patients. The health status surveys examined in this paper may not be suitable for monitoring the health and treatment status of individual patients. Clinical usefulness of existing measures might be demonstrated as clinical experience is broadened. At this time, however, it seems that new instruments, or adaptation of existing measures and scaling methods, are needed for individual-patient assessment and monitoring.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores.

            The Oxford hip and knee scores have been extensively used since they were first described in 1996 and 1998. During this time, they have been modified and used for many different purposes. This paper describes how they should be used and seeks to clarify areas of confusion.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery

              Objectives To present estimates of clinically meaningful or minimal important changes for the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) after joint replacement surgery. Study Design and Setting Secondary data analysis of the NHS patient-reported outcome measures data set that included 82,415 patients listed for hip replacement surgery and 94,015 patients listed for knee replacement surgery was performed. Results Anchor-based methods revealed that meaningful change indices at the group level [minimal important change (MIC)], for example in cohort studies, were ∼11 points for the OHS and ∼9 points for the OKS. For assessment of individual patients, receiver operating characteristic analysis produced MICs of 8 and 7 points for OHS and OKS, respectively. Additionally, the between group minimal important difference (MID), which allows the estimation of a clinically relevant difference in change scores from baseline when comparing two groups, that is, for clinical trials, was estimated to be ∼5 points for both the OKS and the OHS. The distribution-based minimal detectable change (MDC90) estimates for the OKS and OHS were 4 and 5 points, respectively. Conclusion This study has produced and discussed estimates of minimal important change/difference for the OKS/OHS. These estimates should be used in the power calculations and the interpretation of studies using the OKS and OHS. The MDC90 (∼4 points OKS and ∼5 points OHS) represents the smallest possible detectable change for each of these instruments, thus indicating that any lower value would fall within measurement error.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2015
                27 July 2015
                : 5
                : 7
                : e007765
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [2 ]Department of Public Health, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
                [3 ]Health Services Research Unit, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Christopher R Lim; limc20@ 123456student.uwa.edu.au
                Article
                bmjopen-2015-007765
                10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007765
                4521553
                26216152
                0a8e1750-bc4a-402a-8aaf-ff455be6366d
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 28 January 2015
                : 1 April 2015
                : 10 April 2015
                Categories
                Surgery
                Research
                1506
                1737
                1737

                Medicine
                orthopaedic & trauma surgery
                Medicine
                orthopaedic & trauma surgery

                Comments

                Comment on this article