Purpose
To report follow-up methodologies, compliance, and existing strategies for handling
missing data in national arthroscopy registries collecting patient-reported outcome
measures (PROMs).
Methods
Annual reports, EMBASE, and MEDLINE were queried following the Preferred Reporting
Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify national
arthroscopy registries reporting follow-up with a validated PROM and sample size greater
than 500. Extracted data included weighted compliance in peer-reviewed publications,
cumulative compliance throughout the time span of data collection, and missing-data
methodologies.
Results
Nine national arthroscopy registries currently collect PROMs, with cumulative rates
of follow-up ranging from less than 10% to more than 70%. We identified 36 publications
from 5 national registries reporting hip and knee arthroscopies. The weighted mean
compliance with PROMs in national registry publications was 56% at 0.5 years, 44%
to 59% at 1 year, 40% to 61% at 2 years, 35% to 54% at 5 years, and 40% at 10 years.
A missing-data analysis was reported or referenced in 58% of publications.
Conclusions
In national arthroscopy registries, compliance with 2-year PROMs does not meet traditional
follow-up thresholds of 60% or 80% and reporting of missing-data methodologies is
inconsistent.
Level of Evidence
Level IV, systematic review of Level II through IV studies.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to ArthroscopyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Increased utilization of American administrative databases and large-scale clinical registries in orthopaedic research, 1996 to 2016.J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2018; 2: e076
- Bigger data, bigger problems.J Orthop Trauma. 2015; 29: S43
- Database and registry research in orthopaedic surgery: Part 2: Clinical registry data.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015; 97: 1799-1808
- Orthopaedic registries with patient-reported outcome measures.EFORT Open Rev. 2019; 4: 357-367
- First report of a multiphase pilot to measure patient-reported outcomes in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2019; 45: 319-328
- Multicenter Arthroscopy of the Hip Outcomes Research Network. A short version of the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) for use in routine clinical practice.Arthroscopy. 2012; 28 (quiz 616-618): 611-616
- Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)—Development of a self-administered outcome measure.J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998; 28: 88-96
- Response rates and nonresponse errors in surveys.JAMA. 2012; 307: 1805-1806
- Loss of follow-up in orthopaedic trauma: Is 80% follow-up still acceptable?.J Orthop Trauma. 2013; 27: 177-181
- Loss to follow-up after total hip replacement: A source of bias in patient reported outcome measures and registry datasets?.Hip Int. 2014; 24: 465-472
- Response bias: Effect on outcomes evaluation by mail surveys after total knee arthroplasty.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86A: 15-21
- Predictors of low patient-reported outcomes response rates in the California Joint Replacement Registry.J Arthroplasty. 2015; 30: 2071-2075
- Reliability of patient-reported functional outcome in a joint replacement registry.Acta Orthop. 2013; 84: 12-17
- Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries.Acta Orthop. 2016; 87: 9-23
- Arthroplasty studies with greater than 1000 participants: Analysis of follow-up methods.Arthroplasty Today. 2019; 5: 243-250
- The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration.BMJ. 2009; 339: b2700
- Medial collateral ligament (MCL) reconstruction results in improved medial stability: Results from the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Registry (DKRR) [published online May 23, 2019]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05535-x
- Anteromedial portal drilling yielded better survivorship of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions when comparing recent versus early surgeries with this technique.Arthroscopy. 2019; 35: 182-189
- Allograft use results in higher re-revision rate for revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Orthop J Sports Med. 2018; 6 (2325967118775381)
- Risk for revision after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is higher among adolescents: Results from the Danish Registry of Knee Ligament Reconstruction.Orthop J Sports Med. 2014; 2 (2325967114552405)
- Both isolated and multi-ligament posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction results in improved subjective outcome: Results from the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Registry.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018; 26: 1190-1196
- Validation of 14,500 operated knees registered in the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Register: Registration completeness and validity of key variables.Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 5: 219-228
- Comparison of hamstring tendon and patellar tendon grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in a nationwide population-based cohort study: Results from the Danish Registry of Knee Ligament Reconstruction.Am J Sports Med. 2014; 42: 278-284
- No difference in revision rates between single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A comparative study of 16,791 patients from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register.Arthroscopy. 2015; 31: 659-664
- Results from the Swedish National Anterior Cruciate Ligament Register.Arthroscopy. 2014; 30: 803-810
- Outcomes after ACL reconstruction with focus on older patients: Results from the Swedish National Anterior Cruciate Ligament Register.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014; 22: 379-386
- Sex differences in patient-reported outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Data from the Swedish Knee Ligament Register.Am J Sports Med. 2010; 38: 1334-1342
- Increased risk of revision after anteromedial compared with transtibial drilling of the femoral tunnel during primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Results from the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Register.Arthroscopy. 2013; 29: 98-105
- Incidence and outcome after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Results from the Danish Registry for Knee Ligament Reconstructions.Am J Sports Med. 2012; 40: 1551-1557
- The first results from the Danish ACL reconstruction registry: Epidemiologic and 2 year follow-up results from 5,818 knee ligament reconstructions.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009; 17: 117-124
- Equivalent Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores 12 and 24 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Results from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register.Am J Sports Med. 2017; 45: 2085-2091
- Effect of graft choice on revision and contralateral anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Results from the New Zealand ACL Registry.Am J Sports Med. 2020; 48: 63-69
- Graft choice for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a concomitant non-surgically treated medial collateral ligament injury does not influence the risk of revision [published online September 13, 2019]. Arthroscopy.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2019.07.015
- High risk of further anterior cruciate ligament injury in a 10-year follow-up study of anterior cruciate ligament–reconstructed soccer players in the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry [published online August 19, 2019]. Arthroscopy.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2019.05.052
- No differences in subjective knee function between surgical techniques of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at 2-year follow-up: A cohort study from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017; 25: 3945-3954
- The Swedish National Anterior Cruciate Ligament Register: A report on baseline variables and outcomes of surgery for almost 18,000 patients.Am J Sports Med. 2012; 40: 2230-2235
- Proportion of patients reporting acceptable symptoms or treatment failure and their associated KOOS values at 6 to 24 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A study from the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry.Am J Sports Med. 2015; 43: 1902-1907
- Outcomes following primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Rates of patient acceptable symptom state, treatment failure, and associated KOOS scores in the Norwegian National Knee Ligament Registry.Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2014; 22: S182-S183
- Danish Hip Arthroscopy Registry (DHAR): The outcome of patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI).J Hip Preserv Surg. 2017; 4: 170-177
- Cartilage status in FAI patients—Results from the Danish Hip Arthroscopy Registry (DHAR).SICOT J. 2017; 3: 44
- Danish Hip Arthroscopy Registry: Predictors of outcome in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI).Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019; 27: 3110-3120
- Increased risk of ACL revision with non-surgical treatment of a concomitant medial collateral ligament injury: A study on 19,457 patients from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019; 27: 2450-2459
- Functional recovery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, a study of health-related quality of life based on the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013; 21: 914-927
- Meniscus repair with simultaneous ACL reconstruction demonstrated similar clinical outcomes as isolated ACL repair: A result not seen with meniscus resection.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018; 26: 2270-2277
- Increased odds of patient-reported success at 2 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients without cartilage lesions: A cohort study from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018; 26: 1086-1095
- Effect of meniscal and focal cartilage lesions on patient-reported outcome after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A nationwide cohort study from Norway and Sweden of 8476 patients with 2-year follow-up.Am J Sports Med. 2013; 41: 535-543
- The effect of limited perioperative nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Am J Sports Med. 2016; 44: 3111-3118
- Outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry of 4691 patients: How does meniscal repair or resection affect short-term outcomes?.Am J Sports Med. 2015; 43: 1591-1597
- Associations between inadequate knee function detected by KOOS and prospective graft failure in an anterior cruciate ligament-reconstructed knee.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015; 23: 1135-1140
- Patients with concomitant intra-articular lesions at index surgery deteriorate in their Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score in the long term more than patients with isolated anterior cruciate ligament rupture: A study from the Swedish National Anterior Cruciate Ligament Register.Arthroscopy. 2018; 34: 1520-1529
- Effect of concomitant cartilage lesions on patient-reported outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A nationwide cohort study from Norway and Sweden of 8470 patients with 5-year follow-up.Orthop J Sports Med. 2018; 6 (2325967118786219)
- Ten-year risk factors for inferior Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A study of 874 patients from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register.Am J Sports Med. 2018; 46: 2851-2858
- A non-response analysis of 2-year data in the Swedish Knee Ligament Register.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017; 25: 2481-2487
- Annual reports.http://www.nahr.co.uk/annual-reports/Date accessed: October 24, 2019
- Potential serious bias in National Clinical Databases with low degree of reported follow-up.Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2017; 27: 999-1004
- Missing data may lead to changes in hip fracture database studies: A study of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.Bone Joint J. 2018; 100-B: 226-232
- Results of database studies in spine surgery can be influenced by missing data.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017; 475: 2893-2904
- Response rate and costs for automated patient-reported outcomes collection alone compared to combined automated and manual collection.J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2019; 3: 31
- Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM.Churchill Livingstone, New York1997 (Accessed January 3, 2020)
- Author/reviewer tools.http://tools.clinorthop.org/author-reviewer-toolsDate accessed: January 3, 2020
- JBJS, Inc. journals level of evidence.https://journals.lww.com/jbjsjournal/Pages/Journals-Level-of-Evidence.aspxDate accessed: January 3, 2020
- Arthroscopy journal systematic review/meta-analysis template.https://www.arthroscopyjournal.org/article/S0749-8063(13)01253-X/abstractDate accessed: January 30, 2020
- Instructions for authors.(Accessed January 3, 2020)
- Practical and statistical issues in missing data for longitudinal patient-reported outcomes.Stat Methods Med Res. 2014; 23: 440-459
- Effect of different statistical methods on union or time to union in a published study about clavicular fractures.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013; 22: 471-477
- Library.https://www.equator-network.org/library/Date accessed: June 3, 2020
Balk EM, Chung M, Chen ML, Trikalinos TA, Chang LKW. Assessing the accuracy of Google Translate to allow data extraction from trials published in non-English languages. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), 2013. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK121306/. Accessed January 24, 2020.
- The German Arthroscopy Registry (DART).Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017; 25: 3657-3660
- A registry for evaluation of efficiency and safety of surgical treatment of cartilage defects: The German Cartilage Registry (KnorpelRegister DGOU).JMIR Res Protoc. 2016; 5: e122
Article info
Publication history
Published online: August 21, 2020
Accepted:
August 11,
2020
Received:
February 4,
2020
Footnotes
The authors report the following potential conflicts of interest or sources of funding: D.S.C. receives research grants from Arthrex, outside the submitted work; receives royalties from ConMed Linvatec and Zimmer Biomet; is a consultant for ConMed Linvatec and Zimmer Biomet; and is a paid speaker for ConMed Linvatec and Zimmer Biomet. Full ICMJE author disclosure forms are available for this article online, as supplementary material.
Identification
Copyright
© 2020 by the Arthroscopy Association of North America
