A core outcome set for adult, open lower limb fracture has been established consisting of ‘Walking, gait and mobility’, ‘Being able to return to life roles’, ‘Pain or discomfort’, and ‘Quality of life’. This study aims to identify which outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) should be recommended to measure each core outcome. A systematic review and quality assessment were conducted to identify existing instruments with evidence of good measurement properties in the open lower limb fracture population for each core outcome. Additionally, shortlisting criteria were developed to identify suitable instruments not validated in the target population. Candidate instruments were presented, discussed, and voted on at a consensus meeting of key stakeholders.Aims
Methods
Open lower limb fracture is life-changing, resulting in substantial morbidity and resource demand, while inconsistent outcome-reporting hampers systematic review and meta-analysis. A core outcome set establishes consensus among key stakeholders for the recommendation of a minimum set of outcomes. This study aims to define a core outcome set for adult open lower limb fracture. Candidate outcomes were identified from a previously published systematic review and a secondary thematic analysis of 25 patient interviews exploring the lived experience of recovery from open lower limb fracture. Outcomes were categorized and sequentially refined using healthcare professional and patient structured discussion groups. Consensus methods included a multi-stakeholder two-round online Delphi survey and a consensus meeting attended by a purposive sample of stakeholders, facilitated discussion, and voting using a nominal group technique.Aims
Methods
Open lower limb fracture is a life-changing injury affecting 11.5 per 100,000 adults each year, and causes significant morbidity and resource demand on trauma infrastructures. This study aims to identify what, and how, outcomes have been reported for people following open lower limb fracture over ten years. Systematic literature searches identified all clinical studies reporting outcomes for adults following open lower limb fracture between January 2009 and July 2019. All outcomes and outcome measurement instruments were extracted verbatim. An iterative process was used to group outcome terms under standardized outcome headings categorized using an outcome taxonomy.Aims
Methods
To calculate how the likelihood of obtaining measurable benefit from hip or knee arthroplasty varies with preoperative patient-reported scores. Existing UK data from 222,933 knee and 209,760 hip arthroplasty patients were used to model an individual’s probability of gaining meaningful improvement after surgery based on their preoperative Oxford Knee or Hip Score (OKS/OHS). A clinically meaningful improvement after arthroplasty was defined as ≥ 8 point improvement in OHS, and ≥ 7 in OKS.Aims
Methods
The appropriate management for patients with a degenerative tear
of the rotator cuff remains controversial, but operative treatment,
particularly arthroscopic surgery, is increasingly being used. Our
aim in this paper was to compare the effectiveness of arthroscopic
with open repair of the rotator cuff. A total of 273 patients were recruited to a randomised comparison
trial (136 to arthroscopic surgery and 137 to open surgery) from
19 teaching and general hospitals in the United Kingdom. The surgeons
used their usual preferred method of repair. The Oxford Shoulder
Score (OSS), two years post-operatively, was the primary outcome
measure. Imaging of the shoulder was performed at one year after
surgery. The trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials,
ISRCTN97804283.Aims
Patients and Methods
The objective of this study was to explore dimensionality of
the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and examine whether self-reported pain
and functioning can be distinguished in the form of subscales. This was a secondary data analysis of the UK NHS hospital episode
statistics/patient-reported outcome measures dataset containing
pre-operative OHS scores on 97 487 patients who were undergoing
hip replacement surgery. Objective
Methods
This protocol describes a pragmatic multicentre
randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess the clinical and cost
effectiveness of arthroscopic and open surgery in the management
of rotator cuff tears. This trial began in 2007 and was modified
in 2010, with the removal of a non-operative arm due to high rates
of early crossover to surgery. Cite this article:
There is conflicting evidence about the merits
of mobile bearings in total knee replacement, partly because most randomised
controlled trials (RCTs) have not been adequately powered. We report
the results of a multicentre RCT of mobile There was no significant difference between the groups pre-operatively:
mean OKS was 17.18 ( In this appropriately powered RCT, over the first five years
after total knee replacement functional outcomes, re-operation rates
and healthcare costs appear to be the same irrespective of whether
a mobile or fixed bearing is used. Cite this article:
We obtained pre-operative and six-month post-operative
Oxford hip (OHS) and knee scores (OKS) for 1523 patients who underwent
total hip replacement and 1784 patients who underwent total knee
replacement. They all also completed a six-month satisfaction question. Scatter plots showed no relationship between pre-operative Oxford
scores and six-month satisfaction scores. Spearman’s rank correlation
coefficients were -0.04 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.09 to 0.01)
between OHS and satisfaction and 0.04 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.08) between
OKS and satisfaction. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve
analysis was used to identify a cut-off point for the pre-operative
OHS/OKS that identifies whether or not a patient is satisfied with
surgery. We obtained an area under the ROC curve of 0.51 (95% CI
0.45 to 0.56) for hip replacement and 0.56 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.60)
for knee replacement, indicating that pre-operative Oxford scores
have no predictive accuracy in distinguishing satisfied from dissatisfied
patients. In the NHS widespread attempts are being made to use patient-reported
outcome measures (PROMs) data for the purpose of prioritising patients
for surgery. Oxford hip and knee scores have no predictive accuracy
in relation to post-operative patient satisfaction. This evidence
does not support their current use in prioritising access to care.
We developed the Oxford ankle foot questionnaire to assess the disability associated with foot and ankle problems in children aged from five to 16 years. A survey of 158 children and their parents was carried out to determine the content, scaling, reliability and validity of the instrument. Scores from the questionnaire can be calculated to measure the effect of foot or ankle problems on three domains of children’s lives: physical, school and play, and emotional. Scores for each domain were shown to be internally consistent, stable, and to vary little whether reported by child or parent. Satisfactory face, content and construct validity were demonstrated. The questionnaire is appropriate for children with a range of conditions and can provide clinically useful information to supplement other assessment methods. We are currently carrying out further work to assess the responsiveness of questionnaire scores to change over time and with treatment.
We developed a questionnaire to assess patient-reported outcome after surgery of the elbow from interviews with patients. Initially, 17 possible items with five response options were included. A prospective study of 104 patients (107 elbow operations) was carried out to analyse the underlying factor structure, dimensionality, internal and test-retest reliability, construct validity and responsiveness of the questionnaire items. This was compared with the Mayo Elbow performance score clinical scale, the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire, and the Short-Form (SF-36) General Health Survey. In total, five questions were considered inappropriate, which resulted in the final 12-item questionnaire, which has been referred to as the Oxford elbow score. This comprises three unidimensional domains, ‘elbow function’, ‘pain’ and ‘social-psychological’; with each domain comprising four items with good measurement properties. This new 12-item Oxford elbow score is a valid measure of the outcome of surgery of the elbow.
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.
The Oxford hip score (OHS) is a patient-based instrument for assessment of outcome which is often used after total hip replacement, and the EuroQol 5D (EQ5D) is a patient-based generic questionnaire for health assessment. In an analysis of the outcome at one year of 609 revision hip replacements (RHRs), we compared the OHS and EQ5D scores, postoperative patient satisfaction and change in pain. About 25% of the operations were repeat RHRs. At one year, 57% of patients were very pleased with their operation. The correlation between preoperative and postoperative scores and change scores for the OHS and EQ5D was high. For both instruments the effect sizes were large, but the greater effect size of the OHS suggests that it is particularly sensitive to improvements after RHR. The effect scores of the OHS declined with the number of previous RHRs, while those for the EQ5D seemed less sensitive. Our results confirm the value of the OHS in assessing outcome after RHR.
We carried out a prospective study of 93 patients undergoing surgery for conditions of the rotator cuff during 1994 and 1995. They were assessed before operation and after six months, and four years, using the patient-based Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), the SF-36 questionnaire and the Constant shoulder score. The response rates were higher for the OSS and SF-36. The correlation coefficients were high (r >
0.5) between all scores at each stage of the study. While all scores improved substantially at six months, the Constant score was reduced significantly at four years. This did not correlate with the patients’ judgement of the change in symptoms or of the success of the operation. Our study suggests that patient-based measures of pain and function can reliably assess outcomes in the medium term after surgery to the shoulder.
We have developed a 12-item questionnaire for completion by patients presenting with shoulder instability. A prospective study of 92 patients was undertaken involving two assessments, approximately six months apart, performed in an outpatient department. Each patient completed the new questionnaire and the SF36 form. An orthopaedic surgeon completed the Constant shoulder score and the Rowe assessment. The new questionnaire and the Rowe clinical score each achieved a large standardised effect size (≥0.8) and compared favourably with relevant items on the SF36. By contrast, the Constant score barely registered any effect, confirming that it may be relatively insensitive to changes in clinical status for this particular condition. The questionnaire provides a measurement of outcome for shoulder instability which is short, practical, reliable, valid and sensitive to changes of clinical importance.
We have developed a 12-item questionnaire for patients having a total knee replacement (TKR). We made a prospective study of 117 patients before operation and at follow-up six months later, asking them to complete the new questionnaire and the form SF36. Some also filled in the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). An orthopaedic surgeon completed the American Knee Society (AKS) clinical score. The single score derived from the new questionnaire had high internal consistency, and its reproducibility, examined by test-retest reliability, was found to be satisfactory. Its validity was established by obtaining significant correlations in the expected direction with the AKS scores and the relevant parts of the SF36 and HAQ. Sensitivity to change was assessed by analysing the differences between the preoperative scores and those at follow-up. We also compared change in scores with the patients’ retrospective judgement of change in their condition. The effect size for the new questionnaire compared favourably with those for the relevant parts of the SF36. The change scores for the new knee questionnaire were significantly greater (p <
0.0001) for patients who reported the most improvement in their condition. The new questionnaire provides a measure of outcome for TKR that is short, practical, reliable, valid and sensitive to clinically important changes over time.
We developed a 12-item questionnaire for completion by patients having shoulder operations other than stabilisation. A prospective study of 111 patients was undertaken before operation and at follow-up six months later. Each patient completed the new questionnaire and the SF36 form. Some filled in the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). An orthopaedic surgeon assessed the Constant shoulder score. The single score derived from the questionnaire had a high internal consistency. Reproducibility, examined by test-retest reliability, was found to be satisfactory. The validity of the questionnaire was established by obtaining significant correlations in the expected direction with the Constant score and the relevant scales of the SF36 and the HAQ. Sensitivity to change was assessed by analysing the differences between the preoperative scores and those at follow-up. Changes in scores were compared with the patients’ responses to postoperative questions about their condition. The standardised effect size for the new questionnaire compared favourably with that for the SF36 and the HAQ. The new questionnaire was the most efficient in distinguishing patients who said that their shoulder was much better from all other patients. The shoulder questionnaire provides a measure of outcome for shoulder operations which is short, practical, reliable, valid and sensitive to clinically important changes.
We developed a 12-item questionnaire for completion by patients having total hip replacement (THR). A prospective study of 220 patients was undertaken before operation and at follow-up six months later. Each completed the new questionnaire as well as the SF36, and some the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales (AIMS). An orthopaedic surgeon assessed the Charnley hip score. The single score derived from the questionnaire had a high internal consistency. Reproducibility was examined by test-retest reliability and was found to be satisfactory. The validity of the questionnaire was established by obtaining significant correlation in the expected direction with the Charnley scores and relevant scales of the SF36 and the AIMS. Sensitivity to change was assessed by analysing the differences between the preoperative scores and those at the follow-up. The standardised effect size for the new questionnaire compared favourably with that for the SF36 and the AIMS. The new questionnaire provides a measure of outcome for THR which is short, practical, reliable, valid and sensitive to clinically important changes.
