Loss to follow-up after total hip replacement: A source of bias in patient reported outcome measures and registry datasets?

HIP International

Volumn 24, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 465-472

  Imam, Mohamed A ^a   Barke, Samuel ^a   Stafford, Giles H ^a   Parkin, David ^b   Field, Richard E ^a  

^a South West London Elective Orthopaedic Centre   (United Kingdom)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Lost to follow up; Non responders; Outcome; Patient reported outcome; Total hip replacement

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL EVALUATION; DISEASE REGISTRY; FOLLOW UP; HIP ARTHROSCOPY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERVENTION STUDY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SURVIVAL RATE; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; AGE; AGED; FEMALE; HIP ARTHROPLASTY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; REGISTER; STATISTICAL BIAS; TIME; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, HIP; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); FEMALE; HUMANS; LOST TO FOLLOW-UP; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUESTIONNAIRES; REGISTRIES; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 84908285965     PISSN: 11207000     EISSN: 17246067     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5301/hipint.5000141     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Appleby J, Devlin N. Measuring success in the NHS: using patient assessed health outcomes to manage the performance of health care providers. 2004. Available at: http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/n.j.devlin/measuring%20success%20in%20the%20NHS.pdf. Accessed August 04, 2013.
2. Rolfson O, Dahlberg LE, Nilsson JA, Malchau H, Garellick G. Variables determining outcome in total hip replacement surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91(2):157-161.
3. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labelling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006. Available at: http://www.hqlo.com/content/4/1/79. Accessed April 22, 2013.
4. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisals. Publication reference N1618 London: NICE. 2008.
5. Hospital Episode Statistics. Finalised Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in England - April 2009 to March 2010. Pre- and post-operative data. Available at: https://catalogue.ic.nhs.uk/publications/hospital/proms/proms-eng-apr-10-mar-11-final/fina-prom-eng-apr-10-mar-11-pre-post-rep1.pdf. Accessed November 06, 2013.
6. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78(2):185-190.
7. Brooks R. Euro Qol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37(1):53-72.
8. Rolfson O, Kärrholm J, Dahlberg LE, Garellick G. Patientreported outcomes in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register: results of a nationwide prospective observational study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(7):867-875.
9. Field RE, Cronin MD, Singh PJ. The Oxford hip scores for primary and revision hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87(5):618-622.
10. Browne J, Jamieson L, Lewsey J, et al. Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in elective surgery. Report to the Department of Health. December 2007. Available at: http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/php/hsrp/research/proms_report_12_dec_07.pdf. Accessed December 04, 2012.
11. Murray D., Britton AR, Bulstrode CJ. Loss to follow-up matters. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997;79(2):254-257.
12. Hutchings A, Neuburger J, Grosse Frie K, Black N, van der Meulen J. Factors associated with non-response in routine use of patient reported outcome measures after elective surgery in England. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10(1):34.
13. Emberton M, Black N. Impact of non-response and of lateresponse by patients in a multi-centre surgical outcome audit. Int J Qual Health Care. 1995;7(1):47-55.
14. Sales AE, Plomondon ME, Magid DJ, Spertus JA, Rumsfeld JS. Assessing response bias from missing quality of life data: the Heckman method. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004; 2(1):49.
15. Kim J, Lonner JH, Nelson CL, Lotke PA. Response bias: effect on outcomes evaluation by mail surveys after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(1):15-21.
16. Norquist BM, Goldberg BA, Matsen FA III. Challenges in evaluating patients lost to follow-up in clinical studies of rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(6): 838-842.
17. Solberg TK, Sørlie A, Sjaavik K, Nygaard ØP, Ingebrigtsen T. Would loss to follow-up bias the outcome evaluation of patients operated for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine? Acta Orthop. 2011;82(1):56-63.
18. Grosse Frie K, van der Meulen J, Black N. Relationship between patients’ reports of complications and symptoms, disability and quality of life after surgery. Br J Surg. 2012;99(8): 1156-1163.
19. Matharu GS, McBryde CW, Treacy RB, Pynsent WB, Pynsent PB. Impact of active patient follow-up on worst-case implant survival analysis. Hip Int. 2013;23(3):259-262.
20. Garellick G, Kärrholm J, Rogmark C, Herberts P. The Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, Annual Report 2010. Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, Göteborg, Sweden, October 2011. Available at http://www.shpr.se/Libraries/Documents/AnnualReport-2010-2-eng.sflb.ashx. Accessed: October 10, 2013.