Challenges in Outcome Measurement: Clinical Research Perspective
- 359 Downloads
Comparative effectiveness research evaluates treatments as actually delivered in routine clinical practice, shifting research focus from efficacy and internal validity to effectiveness and external validity (“generalizability”). Such research requires accurate assessments of the numbers of patients treated and the completeness of their followup, their clinical outcomes, and the setting in which their care was delivered. Choosing measures and methods for clinical outcome research to produce meaningful information that may be used to improve patient care presents a number of challenges.
Where Are We Now?
Orthopaedic surgery research has many stakeholders, including patients, providers, payers, and policy makers. A major challenge in orthopaedic surgery outcome measurement and clinical research is providing all of these users with valid information for their respective decision making. At present, no plan exists for capturing data on such a broad scale and scope.
Where Do We Need to Go?
Practical challenges include identifying and obtaining resources for widespread data collection and merging multiple data sources. Challenges of study design include sampling to obtain representative data, timing of data collection in the episode of care, and minimizing missing data and study dropout.
How Do We Get There?
Resource limitations may be addressed by repurposing existing clinical resources and capitalizing on technologic advances to increase efficiencies. Increasing use of rigorous, well-designed observational research designs can provide information that may be unattainable in clinical trials. Such study designs should incorporate methods to minimize missing data, to sample multiple providers, facilities, and patients, and to include evaluation of potential confounding variables to minimize bias and allow generalization to broad populations.
KeywordsRoutine Clinical Practice Comparative Effectiveness Research Practical Barrier Clinical Outcome Research Data Collection Interval
- 2.Ayers DC, Zheng H, Franklin PD. Integrating Patient-reported Outcomes Into Orthopaedic Clinical Practice: Proof of Concept From FORCE-TJR. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013. DOI 10.1007/s11999-013-3143-z.
- 9.Franklin PD, Harrold L, Ayers DC. Incorporating Patient-reported Outcomes in Total Joint Arthroplasty Registries: Challenges and Opportunities. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013. DOI 10.1007/s11999-013-3193-2.
- 13.Institute of Medicine. Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2009.Google Scholar
- 15.Kozlowski AJ, Pretz CR, Dams-O’Connor K, Kreider S, Whiteneck G. Applying individual growth curve models to evaluate change in rehabilitation: a National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems Report. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;94:589–596.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Little RJ, D’Agostino R, Cohen ML, Dickersin K, Emerson SS, Farrar JT, Frangakis C, Hogan JW, Molenberghs G, Murphy SA, Neaton JD, Rotnitzky A, Scharfstein D, Shih WJ, Siegel JP, Stern H. The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1355–1360.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.National Research Council. The Prevention and Treatment of Missing Data in Clinical Trials. Panel on Handling Missing Data in Clinical Trials. Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2010.Google Scholar
- 33.Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, Poole C, Schlesselman JJ, Egger M; STROBE Initiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:W163–W194.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar