ORCID Profile
0000-0003-0607-0563
Current Organisation
University of Oxford
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 08-2019
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2016
DOI: 10.1016/J.PREGHY.2016.04.008
Abstract: Pre-ecl sia is a serious complication of pregnancy and contributes to maternal and offspring mortality and morbidity. Randomised controlled trials evaluating therapeutic interventions for pre-ecl sia have reported many different outcomes and outcome measures. Such variation contributes to an inability to compare, contrast, and combine in idual studies, limiting the usefulness of research to inform clinical practice. The development and use of a core outcome set would help to address these issues ensuring outcomes important to all stakeholders, including patients, will be collected and reported in a standardised fashion. An international steering group including healthcare professionals, researchers, and patients, has been formed to guide the development of this core outcome set. Potential outcomes will be identified through a comprehensive literature review and semi-structured interviews with patients. Potential core outcomes will be entered into an international, multi-perspective online Delphi survey. All key stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, researchers, and patients will be invited to participate. The modified Delphi method encourages whole and stakeholder group convergence towards consensus 'core' outcomes. Once core outcomes have been agreed upon it is important to determine how they should be measured. The truth, discrimination, and feasibility assessment framework will assess the quality of potential outcome measures. High quality outcome measures will be associated with core outcomes. Mechanisms exist to disseminate and implement the resulting core outcome set within an international context. Embedding the core outcome set within future clinical trials, systematic reviews, and clinical practice guidelines could make a profound contribution to advancing the usefulness of research to inform clinical practice, enhance patient care, and improve maternal and offspring outcomes. The infrastructure created by developing a core outcome set for pre-ecl sia could be leveraged in other settings, for ex le selecting research priorities and clinical practice guideline development. PROSPECTIVE REGISTRATION: [1] Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) registration number: 588. [2] International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration number: CRD42015015529.
Publisher: British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery
Date: 2017
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.99B1.BJJ-2016-0424.R1
Abstract: 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. The mean OSS improved from 26.3 (standard deviation (sd) 8.2) at baseline, to 41.7 (sd 7.9) two years post-operatively for arthroscopic surgery and from 25.0 (sd 8.0) to 41.5 (sd 7.9) for open surgery. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed no statistical difference between the groups at two years (difference in OSS score -0.76 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.75 to 1.22 p = 0.452). The confidence interval excluded the pre-determined clinically important difference in the OSS of three points. The rate of re-tear was not significantly different between the two groups (46.4% for arthroscopic and 38.6% for open surgery 95% CI -6.9 to 25.8 p = 0.256). Healed repairs had the most improved OSS. These findings were the same when analysed per-protocol. There is no evidence of difference in effectiveness between open and arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff tears. The rate of re-tear is high in both groups, for all sizes of tear and ages and this adversely affects the outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017 -B:107–15.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 2013
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 29-04-2015
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 06-2004
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 07-2015
Publisher: National Institute for Health and Care Research
Date: 10-2015
DOI: 10.3310/HTA19800
Abstract: Uncertainty exists regarding the best management of patients with degenerative tears of the rotator cuff. To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic and open rotator cuff repair in patients aged ≥ 50 years with degenerative rotator cuff tendon tears. Two parallel-group randomised controlled trial. Nineteen teaching and district general hospitals in the UK. Patients ( n = 273) aged ≥ 50 years with degenerative rotator cuff tendon tears. Arthroscopic surgery and open rotator cuff repair, with surgeons using their usual and preferred method of arthroscopic or open repair. Follow-up was by telephone questionnaire at 2 and 8 weeks after surgery and by postal questionnaire at 8, 12 and 24 months after randomisation. The Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) at 24 months was the primary outcome measure. Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of the shoulder was made at 12 months after surgery to assess the integrity of the repair. The mean OSS improved from 26.3 [standard deviation (SD) 8.2] at baseline to 41.7 (SD 7.9) at 24 months for arthroscopic surgery and from 25.0 (SD 8.0) at baseline to 41.5 (SD 7.9) at 24 months for open surgery. When effect sizes are shown for the intervention, a negative sign indicates that an open procedure is favoured. For the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no statistical difference between the groups, the difference in OSS score at 24 months was –0.76 [95% confidence interval (CI) –2.75 to 1.22 p = 0.452] and the CI excluded the predetermined clinically important difference in the OSS of 3 points. There was also no statistical difference when the groups were compared per protocol (difference in OSS score –0.46, 95% CI –5.30 to 4.39 p = 0.854). The questionnaire response rate was 86%. At 8 months, 77% of participants reported that shoulder problems were much or slightly better, and at 24 months this increased to 85%. There were no significant differences in mean cost between the arthroscopic group and the open repair group for any of the component resource-use categories, nor for the total follow-up costs at 24 months. The overall treatment cost at 2 years was £2567 (SD £176) for arthroscopic surgery and £2699 (SD £149) for open surgery, according to intention-to-treat analysis. For the per-protocol analysis there was a significant difference in total initial procedure-related costs between the arthroscopic group and the open repair group, with arthroscopic repair being more costly by £371 (95% CI £135 to £607). Total quality-adjusted life-years accrued at 24 months averaged 1.34 (SD 0.05) in the arthroscopic repair group and 1.35 (SD 0.05) in the open repair group, a non-significant difference of 0.01 (95% CI –0.11 to 0.10). The rate of re-tear was not significantly different across the randomised groups (46.4% and 38.6% for arthroscopic and open surgery, respectively). The participants with tears that were impossible to repair had the lowest OSSs, the participants with re-tears had slightly higher OSSs and the participants with healed repairs had the most improved OSSs. These findings were the same when analysed per protocol. In patients aged 50 years with a degenerative rotator cuff tear there is no difference in clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness between open repair and arthroscopic repair at 2 years for the primary outcome (OSS) and all other prespecified secondary outcomes. Future work should explore new methods to improve tendon healing and reduce the high rate of re-tears observed in this trial. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN97804283. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment Vol. 19, No. 80. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 30-10-2015
DOI: 10.1007/S00167-015-3788-0
Abstract: In this study, we examined whether the OKS demonstrated a floor or a ceiling effect when used to measure the outcome of knee replacement surgery in a large national cohort. NHS PROMs database, containing pre- to 6 month post-operative OKS on 72,154 patients, mean age 69 (SD 9.4), undergoing knee replacement surgery, was examined to establish the proportion of patients achieving top or bottom OKS values pre- and post-operatively. Pre-operatively, none of patients achieved the maximum/'best' (48) and minimum (0) scores. Post-operatively, no patients (0 %) achieved the minimum/'worst' score, but the percentage achieving the maximum score increased to 2.7 %. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that the highest post-operative overall ceiling percentage was 3 %, in a subgroup of patients between 60 and 79 years of age and 13.7 % in a group of patients who had a pre-operative OKS above 41. Furthermore, 10.8 % of patients achieved the top post-operative OKS-PCS and 4.7 % top post-operative OKS-FCS. Based on NHS PROMs data, the OKS does not exhibit a ceiling or floor effect overall, or for both its pain and function subscales, and remains a valid measure of outcomes for patients undergoing TKA. Large-scale retrospective observations study, Level II.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 05-09-2019
Abstract: To quantify the effect of different methodological decisions on the identification of potential core outcomes to inform the development of recommendations for future core coutcome set developers. Mixed methods study. A core outcome set for pre-ecl sia was used as an exemplar. A long list of potential core outcomes was developed by undertaking a systematic review of pre-ecl sia trials and performing a thematic analysis of in-depth patient interviews. Specific methods used to generate long lists of potential core outcomes were evaluated. Different methodological decisions had a substantial impact on the identification of potential core outcomes. Extracting outcomes from published pre-ecl sia trials was an effective way of identifying 48 maternal, eight fetal, 25 neonatal outcomes, and eight patient-reported outcomes. Limiting the extraction of outcomes to primary outcomes or outcomes commonly reported in pre-ecl sia trials reduced the number and ersity of potential core outcomes identified. Thematic analysis of in-depth patient interviews ensured an additional five patient reported outcomes and six outcomes related to future child health were identified. Future core outcome set developers should use quantitative and qualitative methods when developing a long list of potential core outcomes. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: @OfficialNIHR research published in @BJOGtweets informs new recommendations for future @coreoutcomes developers.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 21-08-2017
Abstract: Variation in outcome collection and reporting is a serious hindrance to progress in our specialty therefore, over 80 journals have come together to support the development, dissemination, and implementation of core outcome sets. This study systematically reviewed and characterised registered, progressing, or completed core outcome sets relevant to women's and newborn health. Systematic search using the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trial initiative and the Core Outcomes in Women's and Newborn Health initiative databases. Registry entries, protocols, systematic reviews, and core outcome sets. Descriptive statistics to describe characteristics and results. There were 49 core outcome sets registered in maternal and newborn health, with the majority registered in 2015 (n = 22 48%) or 2016 (n = 16 32%). Benign gynaecology (n = 8 16%) and newborn health (n = 3 6%) are currently under-represented. Twenty-four (52%) core outcome sets were funded by international (n = 1 <1%), national (n = 18 38%), and regional (n = 4 8%) bodies. Seven protocols were published. Twenty systematic reviews have characterised the inconsistency in outcome reporting across a broad range of relevant healthcare conditions. Four core outcome sets were completed: reconstructive breast surgery (11 outcomes), preterm birth (13 outcomes), epilepsy in pregnancy (29 outcomes), and maternity care (48 outcomes). The quantitative, qualitative, and consensus methods used to develop core outcome sets varied considerably. Core outcome sets are currently being developed across women's and newborn health, although coverage of topics is variable. Development of further infrastructure to develop, disseminate, and implement core outcome sets is urgently required. Forty-nine women's and newborn core outcome sets registered. 50% funded. 7 protocols, 20 systematic reviews, and 4 core outcome sets published. @coreoutcomes @jamesmnduffy.
Publisher: British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery
Date: 12-2011
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.93B12.27046
Abstract: 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.
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Date: 21-05-2018
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2015
DOI: 10.1016/J.IJMEDINF.2015.05.003
Abstract: Despite their potential for improving health outcomes, mobile-based home monitoring systems for heart failure have not yet been taken up widely by the patients and providers. To design and iteratively move towards a personalised mobile health monitoring system for patients living with heart failure, according to their health care and usability needs. We present an iterative approach to refining a remote health monitoring system that is based on interactions between different actors (patients, clinicians, social scientists and engineers) and supports the collection of quantitative and qualitative information about user experience and engagement. Patients were provided with tablet computers and commercially available sensing devices (a blood pressure monitor, a set of weighing scales, and a pulse oximeter) in order to complete physiological measurements at home, answer symptom-specific questionnaires, review their personal readings, view educational material on heart failure self-management, and communicate with their health professionals. The system supported unobtrusive remote software upgrades via an application distribution channel and the activation or deactivation of functional components by health professionals during run-time operation. We report early findings from the application of this approach in a cohort of 26 heart failure patients (mean age 72±15 years), their caregivers and healthcare professionals who participated in the SUPPORT-HF (Seamless User-centred Proactive Provision Of Risk-stratified Treatment for Heart Failure) study over a one-year study period (mean patient follow-up duration=270±62 days). The approach employed in this study led to several system upgrades dealing in particular with patient requirements for better communication with the development team and personalised self-monitoring interfaces. Engagement with the system was constantly high throughout the study and during the last week of the evaluation, 23 patients (88%) used the system at least once and 16 patients (62%) at least three times. Designers of future mobile-based home monitoring systems for heart failure and other chronic conditions could leverage the described approach as a means of meeting patients' needs during system use within the home environment and facilitating successful uptake.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 08-2016
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 19-12-2017
Abstract: Randomised trials and their syntheses in meta-analyses offer a unique opportunity to assess the frequency and severity of adverse reactions. To assess safety reporting in pre-ecl sia trials. Systematic search using bibliographic databases, including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and MEDLINE, from inception to August 2017. Randomised trials evaluating anticonvulsant or antihypertensive medication for pre-ecl sia. Descriptive statistics appraising the adequacy of adverse reaction and toxicity reporting. We included 60 randomised trials. Six trials (10%) were registered with the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, two registry records referred to adverse reactions, stating 'safety and toleration' and 'possible side effects' would be collected. Twenty-six trials (43%) stated the frequency of withdrawals within each study arm, and five trials (8%) adequately reported these withdrawals. Adverse reactions were inconsistently reported across eligible trials: 24 (40%) reported no serious adverse reactions and 36 (60%) reported no mild adverse reactions. The methods of definition or measurement of adverse reactions were infrequently reported within published trial reports. Pre-ecl sia trials regularly omit critical information related to safety. Despite the paucity of reporting, randomised trials collect an enormous amount of safety data. Developing and implementing a minimum data set could help to improve safety reporting, permitting a more balanced assessment of interventions by considering the trade-off between the benefits and harms. National Institute for Health Research (DRF-2014-07-051), UK Maternity Forum, Royal Society of Medicine, UK. Developing @coreoutcomes could help to improve safety reporting in #preecl sia trials. @NIHR_DC.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 2018
Publisher: British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery
Date: 11-2014
DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.311.2000313
Abstract: 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 atient-reported outcome measures dataset containing pre-operative OHS scores on 97 487 patients who were undergoing hip replacement surgery. The proposed number of factors to extract depended on the method of extraction employed. Velicer’s Minimum Average Partial test and the Parallel Analysis suggested one factor, the Cattell’s scree test and Kaiser-over-1 rule suggested two factors. Exploratory factor analysis demonstrated that the two-factor OHS had most of the items saliently loading either of the two factors. These factors were named ‘Pain’ and ‘Function’ and their respective subscales were created. There was some cross-loading of items: 8 (pain on standing up from a chair) and 11 (pain during work). These items were assigned to the ‘Pain’ subscale. The final ‘Pain’ subscale consisted of items 1, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. The ‘Function’ subscale consisted of items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, with the recommended scoring of the subscales being from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.855 for the ‘Pain’ subscale and 0.861 for the ‘Function’ subscale. A confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the two-factor model of the OHS had a better fit. However, none of the one-factor or two-factor models was rejected. Factor analyses demonstrated that, in addition to current usage as a single summary scale, separate information on pain and self-reported function can be extracted from the OHS in a meaningful way in the form of subscales. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014 :305–9.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 09-07-2015
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 07-09-2017
DOI: 10.1002/IJGO.12298
Abstract: An evaluation of outcome reporting is required to develop a core outcome set. To assess primary outcomes and outcome measure reporting in pre-ecl sia trials. Five online databases were searched from inception to January 2016 using terms including "preecl sia" and "randomized controlled trial". Randomized controlled trials evaluating treatments for pre-ecl sia published in any language were included. Primary outcomes and data on outcome measure reporting were systematically extracted and categorized. Overall, 79 randomized trials including data from 31 615 women were included. Of those, 38 (48%) reported 35 different primary outcomes 28 were maternal outcomes and seven were fetal/neonatal outcomes. Three randomized trials reported composite outcomes, incorporating between six and nine outcome components. The method of definition or measurement was infrequently or poorly reported. Even when outcomes were consistent across trials, different methods of definition or measurement were frequently described. In randomized trials evaluating interventions for pre-ecl sia, critical information related to the primary outcome, including definition and measurement, is regularly omitted. Developing a core outcome set for pre-ecl sia trials would help to inform primary outcome selection and outcome measure reporting.
Publisher: Becaris Publishing Limited
Date: 08-2016
Abstract: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are reports of the status of a patient's health condition that come directly from the patient. While PRO measures are a well-developed technology with robust standards in research, their use for informing healthcare decisions is still poorly understood. We review relevant ex les of their application in the provision of healthcare and examine the challenges associated with implementing PROs in clinical settings. We evaluate evidence for their use and examine barriers to their uptake, and present an evidence-based framework for the successful implementation of PROs in clinical practice. We discuss current and future developments for the use of PROs in clinical practice, such as in idualized measurement and computer-adaptive testing.
Publisher: National Institute for Health and Care Research
Date: 04-2020
DOI: 10.3310/HTA24200
Abstract: Late-stage medial compartment knee osteoarthritis can be treated using total knee replacement or partial (unicompartmental) knee replacement. There is high variation in treatment choice and insufficient evidence to guide selection. To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of partial knee replacement compared with total knee replacement in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. The findings are intended to guide surgical decision-making for patients, surgeons and health-care providers. This was a randomised, multicentre, pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial that included an expertise component. The target s le size was 500 patients. A web-based randomisation system was used to allocate treatments. Twenty-seven NHS hospitals (68 surgeons). Patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. The trial compared the overall management strategy of partial knee replacement treatment with total knee replacement treatment. No specified brand or subtype of implant was investigated. The Oxford Knee Score at 5 years was the primary end point. Secondary outcomes included activity scores, global health measures, transition items, patient satisfaction (Lund Score) and complications (including reoperation, revision and composite ‘failure’ – defined by minimal Oxford Knee Score improvement and/or reoperation). Cost-effectiveness was also assessed. A total of 528 patients were randomised (partial knee replacement, n = 264 total knee replacement, n = 264). The follow-up primary outcome response rate at 5 years was 88% and both operations had good outcomes. There was no significant difference between groups in mean Oxford Knee Score at 5 years (difference 1.04, 95% confidence interval –0.42 to 2.50). An area under the curve analysis of the Oxford Knee Score at 5 years showed benefit in favour of partial knee replacement over total knee replacement, but the difference was within the minimal clinically important difference [mean 36.6 (standard deviation 8.3) ( n = 233), mean 35.1 (standard deviation 9.1) ( n = 231), respectively]. Secondary outcome measures showed consistent patterns of benefit in the direction of partial knee replacement compared with total knee replacement although most differences were small and non-significant. Patient-reported improvement (transition) and reflection (would you have the operation again?) showed statistically significant superiority for partial knee replacement only, but both of these variables could be influenced by the lack of blinding. The frequency of reoperation (including revision) by treatment received was similar for both groups: 22 out of 245 for partial knee replacement and 28 out of 269 for total knee replacement patients. Revision rates at 5 years were 10 out of 245 for partial knee replacement and 8 out of 269 for total knee replacement. There were 28 ‘failures’ of partial knee replacement and 38 ‘failures’ of total knee replacement (as defined by composite outcome). Beyond 1 year, partial knee replacement was cost-effective compared with total knee replacement, being associated with greater health benefits (measured using quality-adjusted life-years) and lower health-care costs, reflecting lower costs of the index surgery and subsequent health-care use. It was not possible to blind patients in this study and there was some non-compliance with the allocated treatment interventions. Surgeons providing partial knee replacement were relatively experienced with the procedure. Both total knee replacement and partial knee replacement are effective, offer similar clinical outcomes and have similar reoperation and complication rates. Some patient-reported measures of treatment approval were significantly higher for partial knee replacement than for total knee replacement. Partial knee replacement was more cost-effective (more effective and cost saving) than total knee replacement at 5 years. Further (10-year) follow-up is in progress to assess the longer-term stability of these findings. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03013488 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01352247. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment Vol. 24, No. 20. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Publisher: National Institute for Health and Care Research
Date: 06-2019
DOI: 10.3310/HTA23320
Abstract: There is no good evidence to support the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in setting preoperative thresholds for referral for hip and knee replacement surgery. Despite this, the practice is widespread in the NHS. Can clinical outcome tools be used to set thresholds for hip or knee replacement? What is the relationship between the choice of threshold and the cost-effectiveness of surgery? A systematic review identified PROMs used to assess patients undergoing hip/knee replacement. Their measurement properties were compared and supplemented by analysis of existing data sets. For each candidate score, we calculated the absolute threshold (a preoperative level above which there is no potential for improvement) and relative thresholds (preoperative levels above which in iduals are less likely to improve than others). Owing to their measurement properties and the availability of data from their current widespread use in the NHS, the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and Oxford Hip Score (OHS) were selected as the most appropriate scores to use in developing the Arthroplasty Candidacy Help Engine (ACHE) tool. The change in score and the probability of an improvement were then calculated and modelled using preoperative and postoperative OKS/OHSs and PROM scores, thereby creating the ACHE tool. Markov models were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of total hip/knee arthroplasty in the NHS for different preoperative values of OKS/OHSs over a 10-year period. The threshold values were used to model how the ACHE tool may change the number of referrals in a single UK musculoskeletal hub. A user group was established that included patients, members of the public and health-care representatives, to provide stakeholder feedback throughout the research process. From a shortlist of four scores, the OHS and OKS were selected for the ACHE tool based on their measurement properties, calculated preoperative thresholds and cost-effectiveness data. The absolute threshold was 40 for the OHS and 41 for the OKS using the preferred improvement criterion. A range of relative thresholds were calculated based on the relationship between a patient’s preoperative score and their probability of improving after surgery. For ex le, a preoperative OHS of 35 or an OKS of 30 translates to a 75% probability of achieving a good outcome from surgical intervention. The economic evaluation demonstrated that hip and knee arthroplasty cost of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year for patients with any preoperative score below the absolute thresholds (40 for the OHS and 41 for the OKS). Arthroplasty was most cost-effective for patients with lower preoperative scores. The ACHE tool supports but does not replace the shared decision-making process required before an in idual decides whether or not to undergo surgery. The OHS and OKS can be used in the ACHE tool to assess an in idual patient’s suitability for hip/knee replacement surgery. The system enables evidence-based and informed threshold setting in accordance with local resources and policies. At a population level, both hip and knee arthroplasty are highly cost-effective right up to the absolute threshold for intervention. Our stakeholder user group felt that the ACHE tool was a useful evidence-based clinical tool to aid referrals and that it should be trialled in NHS clinical practice to establish its feasibility. Future work could include (1) a real-world study of the ACHE tool to determine its acceptability to patients and general practitioners and (2) a study of the role of the ACHE tool in supporting referral decisions. The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Publisher: British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery
Date: 05-2014
DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.35.2000270
Abstract: 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: Bone Joint Res 2014 :155–60.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Ray fitzpatrick.