A hierarchy of patient-reported outcomes for meta-analysis of knee osteoarthritis trials: empirical evidence from a survey of high impact journals

Carsten Juhl, Hans Lund, Ewa M Roos, Weiya Zhang, Robin Christensen

Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Objectives. To develop a prioritised list based on responsiveness for extracting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measuring pain and disability for performing meta-analyses in knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods. A systematic search was conducted in 20 highest impact factor general and rheumatology journals chosen a priori. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials, using two or more PROs measuring pain and/or disability. Results. A literature search identified 402 publications and 38 trials were included, resulting in 54 randomised comparisons. Thirty-five trials had sufficient data on pain and 15 trials on disability. The WOMAC "pain" and "function" subscales were the most responsive composite scores. The following list was developed. Pain: (1) WOMAC "pain" subscale, (2) pain during activity (VAS), (3) pain during walking (VAS), (4) general knee pain (VAS), (5) pain at rest (VAS), (6) other composite pain scales, and (7) other single item measures. Disability: (1) WOMAC "function" subscale, (2) SF-36 "physical function" subscale, (3) SF-36 (Physical composite score), and (4) Other composite disability scores. Conclusions. As choosing the PRO most favourable for the intervention from individual trials can lead to biased estimates, using a prioritised list as developed in this study is recommended to reduce risk of biased selection of PROs in meta-analyses.
Original languageEnglish
Book seriesArthritis Series
Volume2012
Pages (from-to)Article ID 136245
Number of pages17
ISSN1833-0991
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012

Fingerprint

Knee Osteoarthritis
Meta-Analysis
Surveys and Questionnaires
Rheumatology
Publications
Knee
Randomized Controlled Trials

Cite this

@article{a2f862280c1645c087227bbbc0eca09e,
title = "A hierarchy of patient-reported outcomes for meta-analysis of knee osteoarthritis trials: empirical evidence from a survey of high impact journals",
abstract = "Objectives. To develop a prioritised list based on responsiveness for extracting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measuring pain and disability for performing meta-analyses in knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods. A systematic search was conducted in 20 highest impact factor general and rheumatology journals chosen a priori. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials, using two or more PROs measuring pain and/or disability. Results. A literature search identified 402 publications and 38 trials were included, resulting in 54 randomised comparisons. Thirty-five trials had sufficient data on pain and 15 trials on disability. The WOMAC {"}pain{"} and {"}function{"} subscales were the most responsive composite scores. The following list was developed. Pain: (1) WOMAC {"}pain{"} subscale, (2) pain during activity (VAS), (3) pain during walking (VAS), (4) general knee pain (VAS), (5) pain at rest (VAS), (6) other composite pain scales, and (7) other single item measures. Disability: (1) WOMAC {"}function{"} subscale, (2) SF-36 {"}physical function{"} subscale, (3) SF-36 (Physical composite score), and (4) Other composite disability scores. Conclusions. As choosing the PRO most favourable for the intervention from individual trials can lead to biased estimates, using a prioritised list as developed in this study is recommended to reduce risk of biased selection of PROs in meta-analyses.",
author = "Carsten Juhl and Hans Lund and Roos, {Ewa M} and Weiya Zhang and Robin Christensen",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1155/2012/136245",
language = "English",
volume = "2012",
pages = "Article ID 136245",
journal = "Arthritis Series (Online)",
issn = "1833-0991",

}

A hierarchy of patient-reported outcomes for meta-analysis of knee osteoarthritis trials : empirical evidence from a survey of high impact journals. / Juhl, Carsten; Lund, Hans ; Roos, Ewa M; Zhang, Weiya; Christensen, Robin.

In: Arthritis Series, Vol. 2012, 2012, p. Article ID 136245.

Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A hierarchy of patient-reported outcomes for meta-analysis of knee osteoarthritis trials

T2 - empirical evidence from a survey of high impact journals

AU - Juhl, Carsten

AU - Lund, Hans

AU - Roos, Ewa M

AU - Zhang, Weiya

AU - Christensen, Robin

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - Objectives. To develop a prioritised list based on responsiveness for extracting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measuring pain and disability for performing meta-analyses in knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods. A systematic search was conducted in 20 highest impact factor general and rheumatology journals chosen a priori. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials, using two or more PROs measuring pain and/or disability. Results. A literature search identified 402 publications and 38 trials were included, resulting in 54 randomised comparisons. Thirty-five trials had sufficient data on pain and 15 trials on disability. The WOMAC "pain" and "function" subscales were the most responsive composite scores. The following list was developed. Pain: (1) WOMAC "pain" subscale, (2) pain during activity (VAS), (3) pain during walking (VAS), (4) general knee pain (VAS), (5) pain at rest (VAS), (6) other composite pain scales, and (7) other single item measures. Disability: (1) WOMAC "function" subscale, (2) SF-36 "physical function" subscale, (3) SF-36 (Physical composite score), and (4) Other composite disability scores. Conclusions. As choosing the PRO most favourable for the intervention from individual trials can lead to biased estimates, using a prioritised list as developed in this study is recommended to reduce risk of biased selection of PROs in meta-analyses.

AB - Objectives. To develop a prioritised list based on responsiveness for extracting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measuring pain and disability for performing meta-analyses in knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods. A systematic search was conducted in 20 highest impact factor general and rheumatology journals chosen a priori. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials, using two or more PROs measuring pain and/or disability. Results. A literature search identified 402 publications and 38 trials were included, resulting in 54 randomised comparisons. Thirty-five trials had sufficient data on pain and 15 trials on disability. The WOMAC "pain" and "function" subscales were the most responsive composite scores. The following list was developed. Pain: (1) WOMAC "pain" subscale, (2) pain during activity (VAS), (3) pain during walking (VAS), (4) general knee pain (VAS), (5) pain at rest (VAS), (6) other composite pain scales, and (7) other single item measures. Disability: (1) WOMAC "function" subscale, (2) SF-36 "physical function" subscale, (3) SF-36 (Physical composite score), and (4) Other composite disability scores. Conclusions. As choosing the PRO most favourable for the intervention from individual trials can lead to biased estimates, using a prioritised list as developed in this study is recommended to reduce risk of biased selection of PROs in meta-analyses.

U2 - 10.1155/2012/136245

DO - 10.1155/2012/136245

M3 - Review

C2 - 22792458

VL - 2012

SP - Article ID 136245

JO - Arthritis Series (Online)

JF - Arthritis Series (Online)

SN - 1833-0991

ER -