AQUILA: assessment of quality in lower limb arthroplasty. An expert Delphi consensus for total knee and total hip arthroplasty

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Rob GHH Nelissen²  Henrica MJ Van der Linden-Van der Zwaag²  Huub JL van der Heide²  Edward R Valstar³  Saskia Middeldorp¹  Olaf M Dekkers¹  Bart G Pijls² 

[1] Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands;Department of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands, Albinusdreef 2, Room J-09-127; 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands; P.O. Box 9600, Postzone J-11-S; 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands;Department of Biomechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering, TU Delft, The Netherlands

关键词: Generalizability;    Methodological Quality;    Reporting Quality;    Total Hip Arthroplasty;    Total Knee Arthroplasty;   

Others  :  1152611
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-12-173

 received in 2011-03-03, accepted in 2011-07-22,  发布年份 2011

【 摘 要 】

Background

In the light of both the importance and large numbers of case series and cohort studies (observational studies) in orthopaedic literature, it is remarkable that there is currently no validated measurement tool to appraise their quality. A Delphi approach was used to develop a checklist for reporting quality, methodological quality and generalizability of case series and cohorts in total hip and total knee arthroplasty with a focus on aseptic loosening.

Methods

A web-based Delphi was conducted consisting of two internal rounds and three external rounds in order to achieve expert consensus on items considered relevant for reporting quality, methodological quality and generalizability.

Results

The internal rounds were used to construct a master list. The first external round was completed by 44 experts, 35 of them completed the second external round and 33 of them completed the third external round. Consensus was reached on an 8-item reporting quality checklist, a 6-item methodological checklist and a 22-item generalizability checklist.

Conclusions

Checklist for reporting quality, methodological quality and generalizability for case series and cohorts in total hip and total knee arthroplasty were successfully created through this Delphi. These checklists should improve the accuracy, completeness and quality of case series and cohorts regarding total hip and total knee arthroplasty.

【 授权许可】

   
2011 Pijls et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Schemitsch EH, Bhandari M, McKee MD, Zdero R, Tornetta P, McGehee JB, Hawkins RJ: Orthopaedic surgeons: artists or scientists? J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009, 91(5):1264-1273.
• [2]Kooistra B, Dijkman B, Einhorn TA, Bhandari M: How to design a good case series. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009, 91(Suppl 3):21-26.
• [3]Medical Devices Agency. Hazard notice. London: MDA, 1998 (MDA9801)
• [4]Norton MR, Vhadra RK, Timperley AJ: The Johnson-Elloy (Accord) total knee replacement. Poor results at 8 to 12 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002, 84(6):852-855.
• [5]Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Registry Report 2008 [https://www.jru.orthop.gu.se/] webcite accessed 03-08-2010
• [6]Franklin J, Robertsson O, Gestsson J, Lohmander LS, Ingvarsson T: Revision and complication rates in 654 Exeter total hip replacements, with a maximum follow-up of 20 years. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2003, 4:6. BioMed Central Full Text
• [7]Simera I, Moher D, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG: A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research. Eur J Clin Invest 2010, 40(1):35-53.
• [8]Simera I, Moher D, Hirst A, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG: Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med 2010, 8:24. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Da Costa BR, Cevallos M, Altman DG, Rutjes AWS, Egger M: Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: bibliographic study. BMJ open 2011.
• [10]Jones J, Hunter D: Consensus methods for medical and health services research. Bmj 1995, 311(7001):376-380.
• [11]Myers H, Thomas E, Dziedzic K: What are the important components of the clinical assessment of hand problems in older adults in primary care? Results of a Delphi study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2010, 11:178. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Eysenbach G: Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res 2004, 6(3):e34.
• [13]Graham B, Regehr G, Wright JG: Delphi as a method to establish consensus for diagnostic criteria. J Clin Epidemiol 2003, 56(12):1150-1156.
• [14]Biau DJ, Latouche A, Porcher R: Competing events influence estimated survival probability: when is Kaplan-Meier analysis appropriate? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007, 462:229-233.
• [15]Boutron I, Moher D, Tugwell P, Giraudeau B, Poiraudeau S, Nizard R, Ravaud P: A checklist to evaluate a report of a nonpharmacological trial (CLEAR NPT) was developed using consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 2005, 58(12):1233-1240.
• [16]Cook C, Brismee JM, Pietrobon R, Sizer P, Hegedus E, Riddle DL: Development of a Quality Checklist Using Delphi Methods for Prescriptive Clinical Prediction Rules: the QUADCPR. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2010, 33(1):29-41.
• [17]Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC: Protocol of the COSMIN study: COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006, 6:2. BioMed Central Full Text
• [18]Sanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins JP: Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol 2007, 36(3):666-676.
• [19]EQUATOR Network; Enhancing the QUality and Transparency Of health Research [http://www.equator-network.org/.] webcite
• [20]Sprague S, Quigley L, Bhandari M: Survey design in orthopaedic surgery: getting surgeons to respond. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009, 91(Suppl 3):27-34.
• [21]Dekkers OM, von Elm E, Algra A, Romijn JA, Vandenbroucke JP: How to assess the external validity of therapeutic trials: a conceptual approach. Int J Epidemiol 2010, 39(1):89-94.
• [22]Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Registry Report 2009 V1.0 [http://www.knee.se] webcite accessed 03-08-2010
• [23]Bordini B, Stea S, De Clerico M, Strazzari S, Sasdelli A, Toni A: Factors affecting aseptic loosening of 4750 total hip arthroplasties: multivariate survival analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2007, 8:69. BioMed Central Full Text
• [24]Hernandez-Vaquero D, Suarez-Vazquez A, Fernandez-Lombardia J: Charnley low-friction arthroplasty of the hip. Five to 25 years survivorship in a general hospital. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2008, 9:69. BioMed Central Full Text
• [25]van Hulst LT, Fransen J, den Broeder AA, Grol R, van Riel PL, Hulscher ME: Development of quality indicators for monitoring of the disease course in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2009, 68(12):1805-1810.
• [26]Murray DW, Britton AR, Bulstrode CJ: Loss to follow-up matters. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1997, 79(2):254-257.
• [27]Poolman RW, Swiontkowski MF, Fairbank JC, Schemitsch EH, Sprague S, de Vet HC: Outcome instruments: rationale for their use. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009, 91(Suppl 3):41-49.
• [28]Morgan SS, Bonshahi A, Pradhan N, Gregory A, Gambhir A, Porter ML: The influence of postoperative coronal alignment on revision surgery in total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2008, 32(5):639-642.
• [29]McKee M, Priest P, Ginzler M, Black N: How representative are members of expert panels? Qual Assur Health Care 1991, 3(2):89-94.
• [30]Pibouleau L, Boutron I, Reeves BC, Nizard R, Ravaud P: Applicability and generalisability of published results of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies evaluating four orthopaedic procedures: methodological systematic review. Bmj 2009, 339:b4538.
• [31]Labek G, Frischhut S, Schlichtherle R, Williams A, Thaler M: Outcome of the cementless Taperloc stem: a comprehensive literature review including arthroplasty register data. Acta Orthop 2011, 82(2):143-148.