↓ Skip to main content

Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries

Overview of attention for article published in Acta Orthopaedica, May 2016
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 (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
260 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries
Published in
Acta Orthopaedica, May 2016
DOI 10.1080/17453674.2016.1181816
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ola Rolfson, Eric Bohm, Patricia Franklin, Stephen Lyman, Geke Denissen, Jill Dawson, Jennifer Dunn, Kate Eresian Chenok, Michael Dunbar, Søren Overgaard, Göran Garellick, Anne Lübbeke, Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries

Abstract

- 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.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 260 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 259 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 10%
Researcher 25 10%
Student > Bachelor 23 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 9%
Other 18 7%
Other 54 21%
Unknown 92 35%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 87 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 6%
Engineering 12 5%
Unspecified 7 3%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Other 29 11%
Unknown 105 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 18 December 2023.
All research outputs
#5,383,118
of 27,672,907 outputs
Outputs from Acta Orthopaedica
#212
of 1,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,447
of 319,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Orthopaedica
#4
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,672,907 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,742 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 319,571 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.