Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 11, 2025
The Transition to an Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Approach Improves Early Postoperative Function but is Associated with a Learning Curve
Published on: September 7, 2022
There is no correlation between differences in adverse events and differences in patient-reported outcome measures in
Joshua A Parry1, Maryam Salimi1, Stephen C Stacey1
1Department of Orthopaedics, Denver Health Medical Center, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, CO, United States.
Introduction:
A recovery without adverse events is a top priority of orthopaedic trauma patients, however many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are only powered to detect a difference in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). While it may be assumed that differences in major adverse event rates between treatment groups will result in differences in PROMs, this has not been established. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of RCTs to evaluate if differences in these outcomes were correlated.
Methods:
A systematic search was conducted of online databases to identify RCTs in orthopaedic trauma fracture management that reported both major adverse events and PROMs. Adverse events included secondary surgeries or complications that could negatively affect long-term outcomes (nonunion, chronic regional pain syndrome, etc.). The correlation between a difference (p < 0.05) in adverse events and a difference in PROMs was assessed.
Results:
The systematic review yielded 30 RCTs involving 6,769 patients. The primary outcome was a continuous PROM in 70.0 % (21/30). A difference in major adverse events was reported in 23.3 % (7/30) and a difference in PROMs was reported in 6.7 % (2/30). Studies reporting a difference in adverse events, compared to those that did not, were not more likely to report a difference in PROMs (14.3 % (1/7) vs. 4.3 % (1/23); p = 0.42).
Conclusions:
There was no correlation between differences in adverse event rates and differences in PROMs in orthopaedic trauma RCTs. Investigators should consider powering studies to detect differences in the major adverse events that both patients and surgeons wish to avoid.
Level Of Evidence:
Level I.
More Related Videos
09:01Treatment of Ankle Osteoarthritis with Total Ankle Replacement Through a Lateral Transfibular Approach
Published on: January 24, 2018
07:24Autologous Microfractured and Purified Adipose Tissue for Arthroscopic Management of Osteochondral Lesions of the Talus
Published on: January 23, 2018
Related Concept Videos
01:11Guidelines for Writing Outcome
Patient outcomes reflect the patient's response to the goal rather than what the nurse aims to achieve. Terminology should be observable and measurable to avoid the reader's interpretation. The desired outcome should be realistic and achievable in the designated care timeframe. Expected outcomes should align with adjunctive therapies. The outcome should enhance care...
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...