Sanjeeve Sabharwal

High methodologic quality but poor applicability: assessment of the AAOS guidelines using the AGREE II instrument.

BackgroundThe American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) is a globally recognized leader in musculoskeletal and orthopaedic education. Clinical guidelines are one important focus of the AAOS’ educational efforts. Although their recommendations sometimes generate controversy, a critical appraisal of the overall quality of these guidelines has not, to our knowledge, been reported.Questions/purposesWe wished to assess the overall quality of the AAOS guidelines using the AGREE II (Advancing Guideline Development, Reporting and Evaluation in Health Care) instrument.MethodsAll 14 guidelines available on the AAOS website as of August 2, 2013 were evaluated. Appraisal was performed by three reviewers, independently, using the AGREE II instrument. This is an internationally recognized and validated assessment tool for evaluating guideline quality. Interrater reliability was calculated and descriptive statistics were performed. Strong interrater reliability was shown using a Spearman’s Rho test (correlation coefficient ≥ 0.95).ResultsThe overall results for AGREE II domains across all 14 guidelines were: scope and purpose (median score, 95%), stakeholder involvement (median score, 83%), rigor of development (median score, 94%), clarity of presentation (median score, 92%), applicability (median score, 48%), and editorial independence (median score, 79%).ConclusionsThis study showed that the overall quality of the AAOS guidelines is high, however their applicability was found to be poor. The value of guidelines that have a high quality but that are difficult for clinicians to implement is questionable. Numerous suggestions have been proposed to improve applicability including; health economist involvement in guideline production, implementation of pilot studies and audit to monitor uptake of the guidelines and clinician feedback sessions and barrier analysis studies. Future AAOS guidelines should consider and implement steps that can improve their applicability.

Guidelines in cardiac clinical practice: evaluation of their methodological quality using the AGREE II instrument

Although clinical guidelines have an influential role in healthcare practice, their development process and the evidence they cite has been subject to criticism. This study evaluates the quality of guidelines in cardiac clinical practice by examining how they adhere to validated methodological standards in guideline development. A structured review of cardiac clinical practice guidelines published in seven cardiovascular journals between January 2001 and May 2011 was performed. The AGREE II assessment tool was used by two researchers to evaluate guideline quality. A total of 101 guidelines were identified. Assessment of guidelines using AGREE II found methodological quality to be highly variable (median score, 58.70%; range, 45.34–76.40%). ‘Scope and purpose’ (median score, 86.1%) and ‘clarity of development’ (median score, 83.3 %) were the two domains within AGREE II that received the highest scores. Applicability (median score, 20.80%; range, 4.20–54.20%) and editorial independence (median score, 33.30%; range, 0–62.50%) had the lowest scores. There is considerable variability in the quality of cardiac clinical practice guidelines and this has not improved over the last 10 years. Incorporating validated guideline assessment tools, such as AGREE II, may improve the quality of guidelines.

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty at a non-specialist centre

INTRODUCTION Few studies have reported the outcome of hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) with respect to implant characteristics from non-specialist centres. We report the survival, clinical and radiological outcomes of a single surgeon series of HRA with an average follow-up duration of five years. METHODS All consecutive HRAs performed by a single surgeon between 2003 and 2011 at a district general hospital were retrospectively examined clinically and radiologically. RESULTS A total of 85 patients underwent 109 HRAs (58 male [53.2%] and 51 female patients [46.8%]) with a mean follow-up period of 62 months (range: 12–102 months). The median age was 57 years (range: 25–75 years). The mean acetabular and femoral head component sizes were 54mm (range: 48–64mm) and 48mm (range: 42–58mm) respectively with a mean acetabular inclination angle of 42.9º (range: 20–75º). The survival rate was 95% with five revisions due to aseptic loosening (n=3) and fracture (n=2): these were predominantly for female patients (n=4), with significantly smaller mean acetabular (51mm, p=0.04) and femoral (44mm, p=0.02) implant sizes. Furthermore, they had a higher mean acetabular inclination angle of 48.1º (p=0.74). The mean Oxford hip score was 43.8 (range: 25–48) and the mean University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score was 6.8 (range: 3–10). Radiological findings included heterotopic ossification in 13 (11.9%), radiolucent lines in 6 (5.5%), femoral neck thinning in 2 (1.8%) and femoral neck notching in 5 patients (4.6%). CONCLUSIONS We have shown that HRA at a non-specialist centre has short to medium-term outcomes comparable with those at specialist centres. HRA therefore remains a viable option although vigilance is required in case selection and follow-up according to national guidance.

Open Access Publishing: A Study of Current Practice in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Research

IntroductionOpen access (OA) publication has become an increasingly common route for dissemination of scientific research findings. However, it remains a contentious issue with continued debate as to its impact on the peer-review process and a potential change in the quality of subsequent evidence published. There is little research that looks into OA in oral and maxillofacial surgery.MethodsWe investigated the OA policy in the 30 relevant journals listed in the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Knowledge journal citation report, comparing bibliometric data and quality of evidence produced in journals offering OA and those with subscription-only policies.Results3474 articles were graded for evidence level and the results correlated to journal OA status. 76.7 % of journals offered authors OA services. There was no difference between impact factor, self-citation rate, total citations or quality of evidence between OA and subscription journals.DiscussionThese findings should send clear messages to both clinicians and researchers and should re- assure readers that scientific findings that are disseminated in open access form do not differ in quality to those in subscription-only format. It should reinforce that open access formats are a credible way to display research findings in oral and maxillofacial surgery.

Cost analysis of the surgical treatment of fractures of the proximal humerus: an evaluation of the determinants of cost and comparison of the institutional cost of treatment with the national tariff

AIMS The aims of this study were to estimate the cost of surgical treatment of fractures of the proximal humerus using a micro-costing methodology, contrast this cost with the national reimbursement tariff and establish the major determinants of cost. METHODS A detailed inpatient treatment pathway was constructed using semi-structured interviews with 32 members of hospital staff. Its content validity was established through a Delphi panel evaluation. Costs were calculated using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) and sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the determinants of cost RESULTS The mean cost of the different surgical treatments was estimated to be £3282. Although this represented a profit of £1138 against the national tariff, hemiarthroplasty as a treatment choice resulted in a net loss of £952. Choice of implant and theatre staffing were the largest cost drivers. Operating theatre delays of more than one hour resulted in a loss of income DISCUSSION Our findings indicate that the national tariff does not accurately represent the cost of treatment for this condition. Effective use of the operating theatre and implant discounting are likely to be more effective cost containment approaches than control of bed-day costs. TAKE HOME MESSAGE This cost analysis of fractures of the proximal humerus reinforces the limitations of the national tariff within the English National Health Service, and underlines the importance of effective use of the operating theatre, as well as appropriate implant procurement where controlling costs of treatment is concerned.

The methodological quality of health economic evaluations for the management of hip fractures: A systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Approximately 76,000 people a year sustain a hip fracture in the UK and the estimated cost to the NHS is £1.4 billion a year. Health economic evaluations (HEEs) are one of the methods employed by decision makers to deliver healthcare policy supported by clinical and economic evidence. The objective of this study was to (1) identify and characterize HEEs for the management of patients with hip fractures, and (2) examine their methodological quality. METHODS A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. Studies that met the specified definition for a HEE and evaluated hip fracture management were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC). RESULTS Twenty-seven publications met the inclusion criteria of this study and were included in our descriptive and methodological analysis. Domains of methodology that performed poorly included use of an appropriate time horizon (66.7% of studies), incremental analysis of costs and outcomes (63%), future discounting (44.4%), sensitivity analysis (40.7%), declaration of conflicts of interest (37%) and discussion of ethical considerations (29.6%). CONCLUSIONS HEEs for patients with hip fractures are increasing in publication in recent years. Most of these studies fail to adopt a societal perspective and key aspects of their methodology are poor. The development of future HEEs in this field must adhere to established principles of methodology, so that better quality research can be used to inform health policy on the management of patients with a hip fracture.

Hip fracture litigation: A 10-year review of NHS Litigation Authority data and the effect of national guidelines

ABSTRACT We present a review evaluating all litigation claims relating to hip fractures made in a 10‐year period between 2005 and 2015. Data was obtained from the NHS Litigation Authority through a freedom of information request. All claims relating to hip fractures were reviewed. During the period analysed, 216 claims were made, of which 148 were successful (69%). The total cost of settling these claims was in excess of £5 million. The introduction of a best‐practice tariff by the Department of Health in 2010 was designed to improve the quality of care for hip fracture patients. This was followed by guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in 2011 and the British Orthopaedic Association in 2012. We analysed claims submitted before and after these guidelines were introduced and no significant difference in the number of claims was noted. The most common cause for litigation was a delay in diagnosis, which accounted for 86 claims in total (40%). Despite the presence of these guidelines and targets, there has not been a significant reduction in the number of claims or an improvement in diagnostic accuracy. This may be due to an increasing level of litigation in the UK but we must also question whether we are indeed providing best‐practice care to our hip fracture patients and whether these guidelines need further review.

Data protection training improves data handling.

Background: Clinicians are required by law to keep personal patient data secure. Data protection training (DPT) has been suggested to educate medical professionals in how to most appropriately manage such information.