Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

102 – THE DYNAMICS OF OUTCOME ASSESSMENT: AN ANALYSIS OF THE SPRINT TIBIAL FRACTURE TRIAL



Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate how outcome assessment committees of various sizes, and the biases and personalities of its members, potentially impact a trial’s results.

Method: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the available individual and consensus data from an adjudication committee in a multinational trial (the SPRINT trial) of fracture fixation alternatives. The trial committee members included six members (5 surgeons, 1 methodologist) who independently determined the outcome of reoperation, and any discordant cases were discussed in the committee until a consensus was achieved. We described the pattern of agreement among adjudicators, modeled the adjudication process, and predicted the results if a smaller committee had been used. We also tested for adjudicator biases based upon their preferences for reamed or unreamed intramedullary nails, the presence of a potentially dominant adjudicator, and evaluated the resource implications of reducing the size of an adjudication committee.

Results: Overall, committee member agreement was moderate (Kappa Free=0.6). We found that reducing the number of adjudicators from six to three would have changed the consensus outcome in less than 15% of cases. Regardless of committee size, per-patient analyses also demonstrated very little change in the final study results across all fracture types or in the open fracture subgroup. Results from the original SPRINT adjudication indicated a significant decrease in the rate of reoperations associated with reamed intramedullary nailing among patients with closed fractures (relative risk 0.65; 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.93; p=0.02). Under the model, in committee sizes of three or less persons, these estimates of treatment effect were no longer significant. There was a significant difference between adjudicators with respect to the number of times their independent decision was in the minority but nevertheless became the final consensus decision (p=0.046), suggesting a dominant adjudicator was present in the committee. There were large predicted savings in cost and time with a reduced committee size.

Conclusion: In this study, smaller committees (i.e., four or five rather than six adjudicators) would likely have produced similar results, substantially reducing costs of research.

Correspondence should be addressed to: COA, 4150 Ste. Catherine St. West Suite 360, Westmount, QC H3Z 2Y5, Canada. Email: meetings@canorth.org