18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The role of national registries in improving patient safety for hip and knee replacements

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The serious adverse events associated with metal on metal hip replacements have highlighted the importance of improving methods for monitoring surgical implants.

          The new European Union (EU) device regulation will enforce post-marketing surveillance based on registries among other surveillance tools. Europe has a common regulatory environment, a common market for medical devices, and extensive experience with joint replacement registries. In this context, we elaborate how joint replacement registries, while building on existing structure and data, can better ensure safety and balance risks and benefits.

          Main text

          Actions to improve registry-based implant surveillance include: enriching baseline and diversifying outcomes data collection; improving methodology to limit bias; speeding-up failure detection by active real-time monitoring; implementing risk-benefit analysis; coordinating collaboration between registries; and translating knowledge gained from the data into clinical decision-making and public health policy.

          Conclusions

          The changes proposed here will improve patient safety, enforce the application of the new legal EU requirements, augment evidence, improve clinical decision-making, facilitate value-based health-care delivery, and provide up-to-date guidance for public health.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Projections of US prevalence of arthritis and associated activity limitations.

          To update the projected prevalence of self-reported, doctor-diagnosed arthritis and arthritis-attributable activity limitations among US adults ages 18 years and older from 2005 through 2030. Baseline age- and sex-specific prevalence rates of arthritis and activity limitation, using the latest surveillance case definitions, were estimated from the 2003 National Health Interview Survey, which is an annual, cross-sectional, population-based health interview survey of approximately 31,000 adults. These estimates were used to calculate projected arthritis prevalence and activity limitations for 2005-2030 using future population projections obtained from the US Census Bureau. The prevalence of self-reported, doctor-diagnosed arthritis is projected to increase from 47.8 million in 2005 to nearly 67 million by 2030 (25% of the adult population). By 2030, 25 million (9.3% of the adult population) are projected to report arthritis-attributable activity limitations. In 2030, >50% of arthritis cases will be among adults older than age 65 years. However, working-age adults (45-64 years) will account for almost one-third of cases. By 2030, the number of US adults with arthritis and its associated activity limitation is expected to increase substantially, resulting in a large impact on individuals, the health care system, and society in general. The growing epidemic of obesity may also significantly contribute to the future burden of arthritis. Improving access and availability of current clinical and public health interventions aimed at improving quality of life among persons with arthritis through lifestyle changes and disease self-management may help lessen the long-term impact.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment.

            Indirect and mixed treatment comparison (MTC) approaches to synthesis are logical extensions of more established meta-analysis methods. They have great potential for estimating the comparative effectiveness of multiple treatments using an evidence base of trials that individually do not compare all treatment options. Connected networks of evidence can be synthesized simultaneously to provide estimates of the comparative effectiveness of all included treatments and a ranking of their effectiveness with associated probability statements. The potential of the use of indirect and MTC methods in technology assessment is considerable, and would allow for a more consistent assessment than simpler alternative approaches. Although such models can be viewed as a logical and coherent extension of standard pair-wise meta-analysis, their increased complexity raises some unique issues with far-reaching implications concerning how we use data in technology assessment, while simultaneously raising searching questions about standard pair-wise meta-analysis. This article reviews pair-wise meta-analysis and indirect and MTC approaches to synthesis, clearly outlining the assumptions involved in each approach. It also raises the issues that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) needed to consider in updating their 2004 Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal, if such methods are to be used in their technology appraisals.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment.

              Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) has been suggested by some researchers as a method to capture the benefits beyond quality adjusted life-years in a transparent and consistent manner. The objectives of this article were to analyze the possible application of MCDA approaches in health technology assessment and to describe their relative advantages and disadvantages. This article begins with an introduction to the most common types of MCDA models and a critical review of state-of-the-art methods for incorporating multiple criteria in health technology assessment. An overview of MCDA is provided and is compared against the current UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence health technology appraisal process. A generic MCDA modeling approach is described, and the different MCDA modeling approaches are applied to a hypothetical case study. A comparison of the different MCDA approaches is provided, and the generic issues that need consideration before the application of MCDA in health technology assessment are examined. There are general practical issues that might arise from using an MCDA approach, and it is suggested that appropriate care be taken to ensure the success of MCDA techniques in the appraisal process. Copyright © 2012 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                anne.lubbekewolff@hcuge.ch
                Journal
                BMC Musculoskelet Disord
                BMC Musculoskelet Disord
                BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2474
                16 October 2017
                16 October 2017
                2017
                : 18
                : 414
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0721 9812, GRID grid.150338.c, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, , Geneva University Hospitals and Geneva University, ; Geneva, Switzerland
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8948, GRID grid.4991.5, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, , University of Oxford, ; Oxford, UK
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0383 8386, GRID grid.24029.3d, Wolfson Diabetes and Endocrine Clinic, Institute of Metabolic Science, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, , Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, ; Cambridge, UK
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1794 1878, GRID grid.416710.5, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, ; 10 Spring Gardens, London, UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6905-6120
                Article
                1773
                10.1186/s12891-017-1773-0
                5644143
                29037237
                8813ac98-9986-4dc3-80cc-d18c2e6b85d5
                © The Author(s). 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 8 November 2016
                : 4 October 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: No funding received
                Categories
                Debate
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Orthopedics
                Orthopedics

                Comments

                Comment on this article