The International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (ISAR) Steering Committee established the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Working Group to convene, evaluate, and advise on best practices in the selection, administration, and interpretation of PROMs and to support the adoption and use of PROMs for hip and knee arthroplasty in registries worldwide. The 2 main types of PROMs include generic (general health) PROMs, which provide a measure of general health for any health state, and specific PROMs, which focus on specific symptoms, diseases, organs, body regions, or body functions. The establishment of a PROM instrument requires the fulfillment of methodological standards and rigorous testing to ensure that it is valid, reliable, responsive, and acceptable to the intended population.A survey of the 41 ISAR member registries showed that 8 registries administered a PROMs program that covered all elective hip or knee arthroplasty patients and 6 registries collected PROMs for sample populations; 1 other registry had planned but had not started collection of PROMs. The most common generic instruments used were the EuroQol 5 dimension health outcome survey (EQ-5D) and the Short Form 12 health survey (SF-12) or the similar Veterans RAND 12-item health survey (VR-12). The most common specific PROMs were the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), and the University of California at Los Angeles Activity Score (UCLA).

— The International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (ISAR) Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Working Group have evaluated and recommended best practices in the selection, administration, and interpretation of PROMs for hip and knee arthroplasty registries. The 2 generic PROMs in common use are the Short Form health surveys (SF-36 or SF-12) and EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D). The Working Group recommends that registries should choose specific PROMs that have been appropriately developed with good measurement properties for arthroplasty patients. The Working Group recommend the use of a 1-item pain question (“During the past 4 weeks, how would you describe the pain you usually have in your [right/left] [hip/knee]?”; response: none, very mild, mild, moderate, or severe) and a single-item satisfaction outcome (“How satisfied are you with your [right/left] [hip/knee] replacement?”; response: very unsatisfied, dissatisfied, neutral, satisfied, or very satisfied). Survey logistics include patient instructions, paper- and electronic-based data collection, reminders for follow-up, centralized as opposed to hospital-based follow-up, sample size, patient- or joint-specific evaluation, collection intervals, frequency of response, missing values, and factors in establishing a PROMs registry program. The Working Group recommends including age, sex, diagnosis at joint, general health status preoperatively, and joint pain and function score in case-mix adjustment models. Interpretation and statistical analysis should consider the absolute level of pain, function, and general health status as well as improvement, missing data, approaches to analysis and case-mix adjustment, minimal clinically important difference, and minimal detectable change. The Working Group recommends data collection immediately before and 1 year after surgery, a threshold of 60% for acceptable frequency of response, documentation of non-responders, and documentation of incomplete or missing data.

ObjectiveTo define a minimum Standard Set of outcome measures and case‐mix factors for monitoring, comparing, and improving health care for patients with clinically diagnosed hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA), with a focus on defining the outcomes that matter most to patients.MethodsAn international working group of patients, arthroplasty register experts, orthopedic surgeons, primary care physicians, rheumatologists, and physiotherapists representing 10 countries was assembled to review existing literature and practices for assessing outcomes of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic OA therapies, including surgery. A series of 8 teleconferences, incorporating a modified Delphi process, were held to reach consensus.ResultsThe working group reached consensus on a concise set of outcome measures to evaluate patients’ joint pain, physical functioning, health‐related quality of life, work status, mortality, reoperations, readmissions, and overall satisfaction with treatment result. To support analysis of these outcome measures, pertinent baseline characteristics and risk factor metrics were defined. Annual outcome measurement is recommended for all patients.ConclusionWe have defined a Standard Set of outcome measures for monitoring the care of people with clinically diagnosed hip or knee OA that is appropriate for use across all treatment and care settings. We believe this Standard Set provides meaningful, comparable, and easy to interpret measures ready to implement in clinics and/or registries globally. We view this set as an initial step that, when combined with cost data, will facilitate value‐based health care improvements in the treatment of hip and knee OA.

This is a repository copy of Collection and reporting of patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries : multinational survey and recommendations.

The EUROHIS-QOL 8-item index demonstrated adequate properties as a unidimensional scale and as a two-factor scale evaluating general health and function, and psychosocial aspects of quality of life. It is low on clinical and participant burden, showed minimal ceiling effects and showed good concurrent and discriminant validity.