1
|
Innocenti T, Salvioli S, Logullo P, Giagio S, Ostelo R, Chiarotto A. The Uptake of the Core Outcome Set for Non-Specific Low Back Pain Clinical Trials is Poor: A Meta-Epidemiological Study of Trial Registrations. THE JOURNAL OF PAIN 2024; 25:31-38. [PMID: 37604361 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2023.08.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2023] [Revised: 08/03/2023] [Accepted: 08/12/2023] [Indexed: 08/23/2023]
Abstract
We conducted a meta-epidemiological study on all non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) trial registrations on the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. We aimed to 1) assess the uptake of the core outcome set (COS) for NSLBP in clinical trials; 2) assess the uptake of the core outcome measurement set for NSLBP in clinical trials; and 3) determine whether specific study characteristics are associated with the COS uptake. After applying the relevant filters for the condition, study type, and phase of the trial, 240 registry entries were included in this study. Only 50 (20.8%) entries showed a full COS uptake, and this rate did not increase over time. Most registry entries that planned to measure physical functioning (n = 152) used the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (n = 74; 48.7%); a small percentage used the numeric rating scale (n = 60; 27.3%) or Short Form-12 (n = 5; 8.3%) if they planned to measure pain intensity (n = 220) or health-related quality of life (n = 60), respectively. Only the planned sample size (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 1.01, 1.03) showed a significant but small association with COS uptake. The uptake of the COS for NSLBP is poor. Only 21% of the randomized controlled trials aimed to measure all COS domains in their study registration and COS uptake is not increased over time. Great heterogeneity in measurement instruments was also observed, revealing poor core outcome measurement set uptake. PERSPECTIVE: The Core Outcome Set (COS) for non-specific low back pain was published more than 20 years ago. We evaluated whether trial registrations are using this set of outcomes when testing interventions for low back pain. Full uptake was found only in 21% of the sample, and this is not increasing over time. Researchers should use the COS to ensure that trials measure relevant outcomes consistently.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tiziano Innocenti
- Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, the Netherlands; GIMBE Foundation, Bologna, Italy
| | - Stefano Salvioli
- GIMBE Foundation, Bologna, Italy; Department of Neuroscience, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, Maternal and Child Health, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy
| | - Patricia Logullo
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine (CSM), Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Diseases (NDORMS), University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Silvia Giagio
- Division of Occupational Medicine, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy; Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences (DIBINEM), Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Raymond Ostelo
- Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, the Netherlands; Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam Movement Sciences research institute, the Netherlands
| | - Alessandro Chiarotto
- Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, the Netherlands; Department of General Practice, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Li W, Li G, Chi H, Wang H, Zeng L. Uptake of the core outcome set on polycystic ovary syndrome before and after its publication. Hum Reprod 2023; 38:1816-1824. [PMID: 37533286 PMCID: PMC10477939 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dead149] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/23/2023] [Revised: 06/19/2023] [Indexed: 08/04/2023] Open
Abstract
STUDY QUESTION Does the core outcome set (COS) on polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) impact the selection of research outcomes? SUMMARY ANSWER Following the publication of the COS on PCOS, an increasing number of trials are reporting both the generic domain and body mass index; however, the uptake of this COS has not been as extensive as expected. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The COS on PCOS included 33 core outcomes in the following seven domains: the generic (3), metabolic (8), reproductive (7), pregnancy (10), psychological (3), oncological (1), and long-term (1). This was done to improve consistency in outcome selection and definition. However, thus far, no studies have investigated the effectiveness of this COS in the above-mentioned tasks. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A methodological study based on the trial registries, including 395 eligible clinical trials registered between 1 January 2018 and 21 September 2022. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS A total of 1258 registered clinical studies on PCOS were retrieved from the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Of those, 395 were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and divided into two groups based on the publication date of the COS on PCOS (4 February 2020): pre-publication and post-publication. The practical uptake of this COS was explored after data collation, assessment, comparison of the uptake of core outcomes or domains before and after the publication of this COS, and correlation analysis between the domains. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE There were 26 out of 33 core outcomes and five out of seven domains reported in the 395 trials. The highest uptake was observed for the reproductive domain and the reproductive hormonal profile (63.0% and 38.7%, respectively). After the publication of the COS on PCOS, the uptake of the generic domain and body mass index increased from 24.1% to 35.8% (P = 0.011) and 17.8% to 26.5% (P = 0.039), respectively. The total number of reported core outcomes in the generic domain met statistical significance (P = 0.012). Moreover, multivariable analyses still supported the above finding in the generic domain. Correlation analysis showed that most of the domains were positively correlated with each other. However, the pregnancy domain was negatively correlated with the metabolic domain. Reasons responsible for the unsatisfactory uptake may be the absence of specific definitions of core outcomes, as well as the lack of awareness among researchers regarding this COS. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Due to the lack of standardized definition of outcomes, it was difficult to avoid some subjectivity in the process of consistency assessment. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Two years after its publication, there was no substantial improvement in the uptake of the COS on PCOS. This suggests that this COS may require further revision, refinement, and promotion to improve the comparability of PCOS studies. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This work was funded by Beijing Municipal Health Science and Technology Achievements and Appropriate Technology Promotion Project (BHTPP2022069), and the special fund of Beijing Key Clinical Specialty Construction Project. The authors do not have conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wenqiang Li
- Research Center of Clinical Epidemiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
- Key Laboratory of Epidemiology of Major Diseases (Peking University), Ministry of Education, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
| | - Guoliang Li
- Research Center of Clinical Epidemiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
- School of Basic Medical Sciences, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
| | - Hongbin Chi
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Center for Reproductive Medicine, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
| | - Haining Wang
- Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
| | - Lin Zeng
- Research Center of Clinical Epidemiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
- Key Laboratory of Epidemiology of Major Diseases (Peking University), Ministry of Education, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Fairhall NJ, Dyer SM, Mak JC, Diong J, Kwok WS, Sherrington C. Interventions for improving mobility after hip fracture surgery in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 9:CD001704. [PMID: 36070134 PMCID: PMC9451000 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd001704.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Improving mobility outcomes after hip fracture is key to recovery. Possible strategies include gait training, exercise and muscle stimulation. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2011. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effects (benefits and harms) of interventions aimed at improving mobility and physical functioning after hip fracture surgery in adults. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, trial registers and reference lists, to March 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA All randomised or quasi-randomised trials assessing mobility strategies after hip fracture surgery. Eligible strategies aimed to improve mobility and included care programmes, exercise (gait, balance and functional training, resistance/strength training, endurance, flexibility, three-dimensional (3D) exercise and general physical activity) or muscle stimulation. Intervention was compared with usual care (in-hospital) or with usual care, no intervention, sham exercise or social visit (post-hospital). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Members of the review author team independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used the assessment time point closest to four months for in-hospital studies, and the time point closest to the end of the intervention for post-hospital studies. Critical outcomes were mobility, walking speed, functioning, health-related quality of life, mortality, adverse effects and return to living at pre-fracture residence. MAIN RESULTS We included 40 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 4059 participants from 17 countries. On average, participants were 80 years old and 80% were women. The median number of study participants was 81 and all trials had unclear or high risk of bias for one or more domains. Most trials excluded people with cognitive impairment (70%), immobility and/or medical conditions affecting mobility (72%). In-hospital setting, mobility strategy versus control Eighteen trials (1433 participants) compared mobility strategies with control (usual care) in hospitals. Overall, such strategies may lead to a moderate, clinically-meaningful increase in mobility (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.96; 7 studies, 507 participants; low-certainty evidence) and a small, clinically meaningful improvement in walking speed (CI crosses zero so does not rule out a lack of effect (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.37; 6 studies, 360 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mobility strategies may make little or no difference to short-term (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.30; 6 studies, 489 participants; low-certainty evidence) or long-term mortality (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.12; 2 studies, 133 participants; low-certainty evidence), adverse events measured by hospital re-admission (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.11; 4 studies, 322 participants; low-certainty evidence), or return to pre-fracture residence (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.56; 2 studies, 240 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether mobility strategies improve functioning or health-related quality of life as the certainty of evidence was very low. Gait, balance and functional training probably causes a moderate improvement in mobility (SMD 0.57, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.06; 6 studies, 463 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little or no difference in effects on mobility for resistance training. No studies of other types of exercise or electrical stimulation reported mobility outcomes. Post-hospital setting, mobility strategy versus control Twenty-two trials (2626 participants) compared mobility strategies with control (usual care, no intervention, sham exercise or social visit) in the post-hospital setting. Mobility strategies lead to a small, clinically meaningful increase in mobility (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.54; 7 studies, 761 participants; high-certainty evidence) and a small, clinically meaningful improvement in walking speed compared to control (SMD 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.29; 14 studies, 1067 participants; high-certainty evidence). Mobility strategies lead to a small, non-clinically meaningful increase in functioning (SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.36; 9 studies, 936 participants; high-certainty evidence), and probably lead to a slight increase in quality of life that may not be clinically meaningful (SMD 0.14, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.29; 10 studies, 785 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mobility strategies probably make little or no difference to short-term mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.06; 8 studies, 737 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mobility strategies may make little or no difference to long-term mortality (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; 4 studies, 588 participants; low-certainty evidence) or adverse events measured by hospital re-admission (95% CI includes a large reduction and large increase, RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.42; 2 studies, 206 participants; low-certainty evidence). Training involving gait, balance and functional exercise leads to a small, clinically meaningful increase in mobility (SMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.36; 5 studies, 621 participants; high-certainty evidence), while training classified as being primarily resistance or strength exercise may lead to a clinically meaningful increase in mobility measured using distance walked in six minutes (mean difference (MD) 55.65, 95% CI 28.58 to 82.72; 3 studies, 198 participants; low-certainty evidence). Training involving multiple intervention components probably leads to a substantial, clinically meaningful increase in mobility (SMD 0.94, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.34; 2 studies, 104 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of aerobic training on mobility (very low-certainty evidence). No studies of other types of exercise or electrical stimulation reported mobility outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Interventions targeting improvement in mobility after hip fracture may cause clinically meaningful improvement in mobility and walking speed in hospital and post-hospital settings, compared with conventional care. Interventions that include training of gait, balance and functional tasks are particularly effective. There was little or no between-group difference in the number of adverse events reported. Future trials should include long-term follow-up and economic outcomes, determine the relative impact of different types of exercise and establish effectiveness in emerging economies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicola J Fairhall
- Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Suzanne M Dyer
- Department of Rehabilitation, Aged and Extended Care, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Jenson Cs Mak
- Healthy Ageing, Mind & Body Institute, Sydney, Australia
- John Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research, Kolling Institute, Northern Sydney Local Health District and Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, St Leonards, Australia
| | - Joanna Diong
- School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Wing S Kwok
- Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Catherine Sherrington
- Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Korall AMB, Steliga D, Lamb SE, Lord SR, Rabbani R, Sibley KM. Factors associated with reporting of the Prevention of Falls Network Europe (ProFaNE) core outcome set domains in randomized trials on falls in older people: a citation analysis and correlational study. Trials 2022; 23:710. [PMID: 36028912 PMCID: PMC9419335 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-022-06642-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/05/2020] [Accepted: 08/06/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Core outcome sets are advocated as a means to standardize outcome reporting across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and reduce selective outcome reporting. In 2005, the Prevention of Falls Network Europe (ProFaNE) published a core outcome set identifying five domains that should be measured and reported, at a minimum, in RCTs or meta-analysis on falls in older people. As reporting of all five domains of the ProFaNE core outcome set has been minimal, we set out to investigate factors associated with reporting of the ProFaNE core outcome set domains in a purposeful sample of RCTs on falls in older people. Methods We conducted a systematic citation analysis to identify all reports of RCTs focused on falls in older people that cited the ProFaNE core outcome set between October 2005 and July 2021. We abstracted author-level, study-level, and manuscript-level data and whether each domain of the ProFaNE core outcome set was reported. We used penalized LASSO regression to identify factors associated with the mean percentage of ProFaNE core outcome set domains reported. Results We identified 85 eligible reports of RCTs. Articles were published between 2007 and 2021, described 75 unique RCTs, and were authored by 76 unique corresponding authors. The percentage of ProFaNE core outcome set domains reported ranged from 0 to 100%, with a median of 40% and mean (standard deviation, SD) of 52.2% (25.1). RCTs funded by a non-industry source reported a higher mean percentage of domains than RCTs without a non-industry funding source (estimated mean difference = 17.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8–33.2). RCTs examining exercise (15.4%; 95% CI 1.9–28.9) or multi-component/factorial (17.4%; 95% CI 4.7–30.1) interventions each reported a higher mean percentage of domains than RCTs examining other intervention types. Conclusions We found that RCTs funded by at least one non-industry source, examining exercise or multi-component/factorial interventions, reported the highest percentages of ProFaNE core outcome set domains. Findings may help inform strategies to increase the impact of the ProFaNE core outcome set. Ultimately, this may lead to enhanced knowledge of the effectiveness and safety of interventions to prevent and/or manage falls in older people. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06642-w.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexandra M B Korall
- George & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, Third Floor, Chown Building, 753 McDermot Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R3B 0V8, Canada.,Department of Community Health Sciences, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
| | - Dawn Steliga
- Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, Interdisciplinary Health Program, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
| | - Sarah E Lamb
- College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Stephen R Lord
- Neuroscience Research Australia, New South Wales, Australia.,School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Rasheda Rabbani
- George & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, Third Floor, Chown Building, 753 McDermot Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R3B 0V8, Canada.,Department of Community Health Sciences, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
| | - Kathryn M Sibley
- George & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, Third Floor, Chown Building, 753 McDermot Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R3B 0V8, Canada. .,Department of Community Health Sciences, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Araiza-Nava B, Méndez-Sánchez L, Clark P, Peralta-Pedrero ML, Javaid MK, Calo M, Martínez-Hernández BM, Guzmán-Jiménez F. Short- and long-term prognostic factors associated with functional recovery in elderly patients with hip fracture: A systematic review. Osteoporos Int 2022; 33:1429-1444. [PMID: 35247062 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-022-06346-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2021] [Accepted: 02/10/2022] [Indexed: 01/17/2023]
Abstract
UNLABELLED This systematic review aimed to identify short- and long-term associated factors to functional recovery of elderly hip fracture patients after discharge. We identified 43 studies reporting 74 associated factors to functional recovery; most of them were biological, sociodemographic, or inherent factors to patients' baseline characteristics, including their pre-facture functional capacity. PURPOSE This systematic review aimed to identify short- and long-term associated factors to functional recovery of elderly hip fracture patients after hospital discharge. We assessed the use of the hip fracture core-set and key-performance indicators for secondary fracture reduction. METHODS A search was performed in seven electronic databases. Observational studies reporting predictors after usual care of elderly patients with hip fracture diagnoses receiving surgical or conservative treatment were included. Primary outcomes considered were part of the domains corresponding to functional capacity. RESULTS Of 3873 references identified, and after the screening and selection process, 43 studies were included. Sixty-one functional measures were identified for ten functional outcomes, including BADLs, IADLs, ambulation, and mobility. Biological characteristics such as age, sex, comorbidities, cognitive status, nutritional state, and biochemical parameters are significantly associated. Determinants such as contact and size of social network and those related to institutional care quality are relevant for functional recovery at six and 12 months. Age, pre-fracture function, cognitive status, and complications continue to be associated five years after discharge. We found 74 associated factors to functional recovery of elderly hip fracture patients. Ten of the studies reported rehabilitation programs as suggested in KPI 9; none used the complete hip fracture core-set. CONCLUSION Most of the associated factors for functional recovery of elderly hip fracture were biological, sociodemographic, or inherent factors to patients' baseline characteristics, including their pre-facture functional capacity. For the core-set and KPI's, we found an insufficient use and report. This study reports 61 different instruments to measure functional capacity. REGISTRATION NUMBER PROSPERO (CRD42020149563).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Berenice Araiza-Nava
- Clinical Epidemiology Research Unit, Hospital Infantil de Mexico "Federico Gomez", Mexico city, Mexico. Faculty of Medicine of National Autonomous University of Mexico (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México), Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Lucia Méndez-Sánchez
- Clinical Epidemiology Research Unit, Hospital Infantil de Mexico "Federico Gomez", Mexico city, Mexico. Faculty of Medicine of National Autonomous University of Mexico (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México), Mexico City, Mexico.
| | - Patricia Clark
- Clinical Epidemiology Research Unit, Hospital Infantil de Mexico "Federico Gomez", Mexico city, Mexico. Faculty of Medicine of National Autonomous University of Mexico (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México), Mexico City, Mexico
| | | | - Muhammad Kassim Javaid
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Mónica Calo
- Regional Manager of IOF Latin America, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Brenda María Martínez-Hernández
- Faculty of Medicine of National Autonomous University of Mexico (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México), Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Fabiola Guzmán-Jiménez
- Medical Unit of High Specialty Traumatology and Orthopaedics Hospital "Lomas Verdes", Mexican Institute of Social Security (UMAE Hospital de Traumatología Y Ortopedia "Lomas Verdes", Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social), Naucalpan de Juárez, Mexico. Faculty of Medicine of National Autonomous University of Mexico (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México), Mexico City, Mexico
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Min K, Beom J, Kim BR, Lee SY, Lee GJ, Lee JH, Lee SY, Won SJ, Ahn S, Bang HJ, Cha Y, Chang MC, Choi JY, Do JG, Do KH, Han JY, Jang IY, Jin Y, Kim DH, Kim DH, Kim IJ, Kim MC, Kim W, Lee YJ, Lee IS, Lee IS, Lee J, Lee CH, Lim SH, Park D, Park JH, Park M, Park Y, Ryu JS, Song YJ, Yang S, Yang HS, Yoo JS, Yoo JI, Yoo SD, Choi KH, Lim JY. Clinical Practice Guideline for Postoperative Rehabilitation in Older Patients With Hip Fractures. Ann Rehabil Med 2021; 45:225-259. [PMID: 34233406 PMCID: PMC8273721 DOI: 10.5535/arm.21110] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2021] [Revised: 06/10/2021] [Accepted: 06/30/2021] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The incidence of hip fractures is increasing worldwide with the aging population, causing a challenge to healthcare systems due to the associated morbidities and high risk of mortality. After hip fractures in frail geriatric patients, existing comorbidities worsen and new complications are prone to occur. Comprehensive rehabilitation is essential for promoting physical function recovery and minimizing complications, which can be achieved through a multidisciplinary approach. Recommendations are required to assist healthcare providers in making decisions on rehabilitation post-surgery. Clinical practice guidelines regarding rehabilitation (physical and occupational therapies) and management of comorbidities/complications in the postoperative phase of hip fractures have not been developed. This guideline aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for various treatment items required for proper recovery after hip fracture surgeries. METHODS Reflecting the complex perspectives associated with rehabilitation post-hip surgeries, 15 key questions (KQs) reflecting the complex perspectives associated with post-hip surgery rehabilitation were categorized into four areas: multidisciplinary, rehabilitation, community-care, and comorbidities/complications. Relevant literature from four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed) was searched for articles published up to February 2020. The evidence level and recommended grade were determined according to the grade of recommendation assessment, development, and evaluation method. RESULTS A multidisciplinary approach, progressive resistance exercises, and balance training are strongly recommended. Early ambulation, weigh-bearing exercises, activities of daily living training, community-level rehabilitation, management of comorbidities/complication prevention, and nutritional support were also suggested. This multidisciplinary approach reduced the total healthcare cost. CONCLUSION This guideline presents comprehensive recommendations for the rehabilitation of adult patients after hip fracture surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kyunghoon Min
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University School of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea
| | - Jaewon Beom
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea
| | - Bo Ryun Kim
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sang Yoon Lee
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, SMG-SNU Boramae Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
| | - Goo Joo Lee
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, National Traffic Injury Rehabilitation Hospital, Yangpyeong, Korea
| | | | - Seung Yeol Lee
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Soonchunhyang University Hospital, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Bucheon, Korea
| | - Sun Jae Won
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Yeouido Saint Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sangwoo Ahn
- Physical Therapy, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea
| | - Heui Je Bang
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Chungbuk National University College of Medicine, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Cheongju, Korea
| | - Yonghan Cha
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Daejeon Eulji Medical Center, Eulji University School of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea
| | - Min Cheol Chang
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea
| | - Jung-Yeon Choi
- Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea
| | - Jong Geol Do
- Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Kyung Hee Do
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Veterans Health Service Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jae-Young Han
- Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School & Hospital, Gwangju, Korea
| | - Il-Young Jang
- Division of Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Youri Jin
- Department of Food and Nutrition Services, Hanyang University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Dong Hwan Kim
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Seoul, Korea
| | - Du Hwan Kim
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - In Jong Kim
- Howareyou Rehabilitation Clinic, Seoul, Korea
| | - Myung Chul Kim
- Department of Physical Therapy, Eulji University, Seongnam, Korea
| | - Won Kim
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Yun Jung Lee
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Myongji Hospital, Goyang, Korea
| | - In Seok Lee
- Nutrition Team, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
| | - In-Sik Lee
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Konkuk University School of Medicine and Konkuk University Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
| | - JungSoo Lee
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Daejeon St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Daejeon, Korea
| | - Chang-Hyung Lee
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Yangsan, Korea
| | - Seong Hoon Lim
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, St. Vincent’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Suwon, Korea
| | - Donghwi Park
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Ulsan University Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan, Korea
| | - Jung Hyun Park
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Rehabilitation Institute of Neuromuscular Disease, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Myungsook Park
- Department of Nursing, Konkuk University, Chungju, Korea
| | - Yongsoon Park
- Department of Food and Nutrition, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
| | - Ju Seok Ryu
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea
| | - Young Jin Song
- Occupational Therapy, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
| | - Seoyon Yang
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Ewha Woman’s University Seoul Hospital, Ewha Womans University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hee Seung Yang
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Veterans Health Service Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
| | - Ji Sung Yoo
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea
| | - Jun-il Yoo
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Jinju, Korea
| | - Seung Don Yoo
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Seoul, Korea
| | - Kyoung Hyo Choi
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jae-Young Lim
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Hughes KL, Clarke M, Williamson PR. A systematic review finds Core Outcome Set uptake varies widely across different areas of health. J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 129:114-123. [PMID: 32987162 PMCID: PMC7815247 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 49] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2020] [Revised: 08/11/2020] [Accepted: 09/09/2020] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The aim of our review was to bring together studies that had assessed the uptake of core outcome sets (COS) to explore the level of uptake across different COS and areas of health. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We examined the citations of 337 COS reports to identify studies that had assessed the uptake of a particular COS in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or systematic reviews (SRs). RESULTS We identified 24 studies that had assessed uptake in RCTs and two studies that had assessed uptake in SRs. The studies covered a total of 17/337 (5%) COS. Uptake rates reported for RCTs varied from 0% of RCTs (gout) to 82% RCTs (rheumatoid arthritis) measuring the full COS. Studies that assessed uptake of individual core outcomes showed a wide variation in uptake between the outcomes. Suggested barriers to uptake included lack of validated measures, lack of patient and other key stakeholder involvement in COS development, and lack of awareness of the COS. CONCLUSIONS Few studies have been undertaken to assess the uptake of COS in RCTs and SRs. Further studies are needed to assess whether COS have been implemented across a wider range of disease categories and to explore the barriers and facilitators to COS uptake.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karen L Hughes
- MRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Block F Waterhouse Building, 1-5 Brownlow Street, Liverpool L69 3GL, United Kingdom.
| | - Mike Clarke
- Centre for Public Health, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Block B, Queen's University Belfast, Royal Victoria Hospital, Grosvenor Road, Belfast BT12 6BA, United Kingdom
| | - Paula R Williamson
- MRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Block F Waterhouse Building, 1-5 Brownlow Street, Liverpool L69 3GL, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Fletcher J, Sheehan KJ, Smith TO. Barriers to uptake of the hip fracture core outcome set: An international survey of 80 hip fracture trialists. Clin Trials 2020; 17:712-716. [PMID: 32674690 DOI: 10.1177/1740774520941444] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Core outcome sets are an agreed recommendation to inform the selection of outcome measures in clinical trials. There has been low uptake of the 2014 hip fracture core outcome set. The reasons for this remain unclear. The aim of this study was to understand the reasons for the non-adoption and approaches to increase adoption of the hip fracture core outcome set. METHODS Randomised controlled trials from PubMed (2017-2019) and ClinicalTrials.gov (2015-2019) were identified. Corresponding authors for each identified trial (n = 302) were surveyed using five questions on awareness of the hip fracture core outcome set, reasons for non-adoption and approaches to increase adoption. Data were analysed descriptively using frequencies, mean values and standard deviations. RESULTS Fifty-four percent of the respondents (n = 43) were aware of the concept of core outcome set. Only 15% (n = 12) based the outcome measure selection on the 2014 hip fracture core outcome set. Key reasons for non-adoption included the following: authors being unaware and perceived inappropriateness to their trial design. Eighty-six percent (n = 69) of respondents agreed to the need for increased awareness of core outcome sets through research training, academic and clinical journal requirements, and funding or publication stipulations. Eighty-eight percent (n = 70) of respondents indicated the current core outcome set required revision to focus on trials investigating people with cognitive impairment, caregivers, rehabilitation, surgical interventions and anaesthetic trial designs. CONCLUSION Barriers to the adoption of the hip fracture core outcome set centre on education, awareness of the core outcome sets and applicability to the breath of hip fracture trial designs. Further consideration should be made to address these, to improve the harmonisation of outcome measures across hip fracture trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jessica Fletcher
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.,Physiotherapy Department, Connect Health, Milton Keynes, UK
| | - Katie Jane Sheehan
- Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, Kings College London, London, UK
| | - Toby O Smith
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.,Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Chevance A, Tran VT, Ravaud P. Controversy and Debate Series on Core Outcome Sets. Paper 7: Response to comments on the paper 2-6 re "Improving the generalizability and credibility of Core Outcome Sets (COSs) by involving large international sample of participants". J Clin Epidemiol 2020; 125:232-234. [PMID: 32565218 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.06.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/29/2020] [Accepted: 06/14/2020] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Astrid Chevance
- Université de Paris, CRESS, INSERM, INRA, F-75004 Paris, France.
| | - Viet-Thi Tran
- Université de Paris, CRESS, INSERM, INRA, F-75004 Paris, France
| | - Philippe Ravaud
- Université de Paris, CRESS, INSERM, INRA, F-75004 Paris, France; Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, 22 W 168th St, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|