↓ Skip to main content

Perioperative Risk Adjustment for Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Are Simple Clinically Driven Models Sufficient?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
Title
Perioperative Risk Adjustment for Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Are Simple Clinically Driven Models Sufficient?
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11999-016-5147-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

David N Bernstein, Aakash Keswani, David Ring

Abstract

There is growing interest in value-based health care in the United States. Statistical analysis of large databases can inform us of the factors associated with and the probability of adverse events and unplanned readmissions that diminish quality and add expense. For example, increased operating time and high blood urea nitrogen (BUN) are associated with adverse events, whereas patients on antihypertensive medications were more likely to have an unplanned readmission. Many surgeons rely on their knowledge and intuition when assessing the risk of a procedure. Comparing clinically driven with statistically derived risk models of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) offers insight into potential gaps between common practice and evidence-based medicine. (1) Does a statistically driven model better explain the variation in unplanned readmission within 30 days of discharge when compared with an a priori five-variable model selected based on expert orthopaedic surgeon opinion? (2) Does a statistically driven model better explain the variation in adverse events within 30 days of discharge when compared with an a priori five-variable model selected based on expert orthopaedic surgeon opinion? Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify 4030 individuals older than 17 years of age who had TSA in which osteoarthritis was the primary etiology. A logistic regression model for adverse event and unplanned readmission within 30 days was constructed using (1) five variables chosen a priori based on clinic expertise (age, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification ≥ 3, body mass index, smoking status, and diabetes mellitus); and (2) by entering all variables with p < 0.10 in bivariate analysis. We then excluded 870 patients (22%) based on preoperative factors felt to make large discretionary surgery unwise to focus our research on appropriate procedures. Infirm patients have more pressing needs than alleviation of shoulder pain and stiffness. Among the remaining 3160 patients, logistic regression models for adverse event and unplanned readmission within 30 days were constructed in a similar manner to the complete models. The five a priori risk factors used in each model based on clinical expertise were selected by consensus of an expert orthopaedic surgeon panel. When patients unfit for discretionary surgery were excluded, the clinically driven model found no risk factors and accounted for 1.4% of the variation in unplanned readmission. In contrast, the statistically driven model explained 4.6% of the variation and found operating time (hours) (odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.53) and hypertension requiring medications (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.01-3.76) were associated with unplanned readmission accounting for all other factors. However, neither the clinically driven model (pseudo R(2), 1.4%) nor statistically driven model (pseudo R(2), 4.6%) provided much explanatory power. When patients unfit for discretionary surgery were excluded, no factors in the clinically driven model were significant and the model accounted for 0.95% of the variation in adverse events. In the statistically driven model, age (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06), men (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.05-2.57), operating time (hours) (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.52), and high BUN (OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.35-7.21) were associated with adverse events when accounting for all other factors, explaining 3.3% of the variation. However, neither the clinically driven model (pseudo R(2), 0.95%) nor the statistically driven model (pseudo R(2), 3.3%) provided much explanatory power. The observation that a statistically derived risk model performs better than a clinically driven model affirms the value of research based on large databases, although the models derived need to be tested prospectively. Clinicians can utilize our results to understand that clinician intuition may not always offer the best risk adjustment and that factors impacting TSA unplanned readmission and adverse events may be best derived from large data sets. However, because current analyses explain limited variation in outcomes, future studies might look to better define what factors drive the variation in unplanned readmission and adverse events.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Master 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 28 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 13%
Engineering 4 4%
Psychology 3 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 32 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 December 2016.
All research outputs
#6,313,184
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#1,674
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,057
of 444,885 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#15
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 444,885 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.