Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Research

The impact of surgeon and patient treatment preferences in an orthopaedic trauma surgery trial

Authors: Ada Keding, Helen Handoll, Stephen Brealey, Laura Jefferson, Catherine Hewitt, Belen Corbacho, David Torgerson, Amar Rangan

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Surgeon and patient treatment preferences are important threats to the internal and external validity of surgical trials such as PROFHER, which compared surgical versus non-surgical treatment for displaced fractures of the proximal humerus in adults. We explored the treatment preferences expressed by surgeons and patients in the trial and how these impacted on patient selection, trial conduct and patient outcome.

Methods

A series of exploratory secondary analyses of the PROFHER trial data were undertaken. We reviewed the extent of surgeon and patient treatment preferences (surgery or not surgery) at screening (n = 1250) as well as prior preference (including no preference) of randomised patients (n = 250), and assessed their impact on recruitment and adherence to follow-up and rehabilitation. Changes in treatment after 2 years’ follow-up were explored. Patient preference and characteristics associated with trial inclusion or treatment preference (t test, chi-squared test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test) were included as treatment interaction terms in the primary trial analysis of shoulder functioning (Oxford Shoulder Score, OSS).

Results

Surgeons excluded 17% of otherwise eligible patients based on lack of equipoise; these patients had less complex fractures (p < 0.001) and tended to be older (p = 0.062). Surgeons were more likely to recommend surgery for patients under 65 years of age (p = 0.059) and who had injured their right shoulder (p = 0.052). Over half of eligible patients (56%) did not consent to take part in the trial; these patients tended to be older (p = 0.022), with a preference for not surgery (74%; which was associated with older age, p = 0.039). There were no differential treatment effects (p value of interaction) for shoulder functioning (OSS) based on subgroups of patient preference (p = 0.751), age group (p = 0.264), fracture type (p = 0.954) and shoulder dominance (p = 0.850). Patients who were randomised to their preferred treatment had better follow-up rates (94 vs 84% at 2 years) and treatment adherence (90 vs 83% reported completing home exercises). Patients who were not randomised to their preferred treatment were more likely to change their treatment preference at 24 months (60 vs 26%).

Conclusions

The robustness of the PROFHER trial findings was confirmed against possible bias introduced by surgeon and patient preferences. The importance of collecting preference data is highlighted.

Trial registration

ISRCTN50850043. Registered on 25 March 2008.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Ergina PL, et al. Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet. 2009;374(9695):1097–104.CrossRef Ergina PL, et al. Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet. 2009;374(9695):1097–104.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Cook JA. The challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis of surgical randomised controlled trials. Trials. 2009;10:9.CrossRef Cook JA. The challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis of surgical randomised controlled trials. Trials. 2009;10:9.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Sibai T, Carlisle H, Tornetta P 3rd. The darker side of randomized trials: recruitment challenges. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(Suppl 1):49–55.CrossRef Sibai T, Carlisle H, Tornetta P 3rd. The darker side of randomized trials: recruitment challenges. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(Suppl 1):49–55.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Weinstein JN, et al. Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): a randomized trial. JAMA. 2006;296(20):2441–50.CrossRef Weinstein JN, et al. Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): a randomized trial. JAMA. 2006;296(20):2441–50.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Preference Collaborative Review Group. Patients’ preferences within randomised trials: systematic review and patient level meta-analysis. BMJ. 2008;337:a1864.CrossRef Preference Collaborative Review Group. Patients’ preferences within randomised trials: systematic review and patient level meta-analysis. BMJ. 2008;337:a1864.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Poolman RW, et al. Reporting of outcomes in orthopaedic randomized trials: does blinding of outcome assessors matter? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(3):550–8.PubMed Poolman RW, et al. Reporting of outcomes in orthopaedic randomized trials: does blinding of outcome assessors matter? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(3):550–8.PubMed
7.
go back to reference Katz JN, et al. Departures from community equipoise may lead to incorrect inference in randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(3):280–5.CrossRef Katz JN, et al. Departures from community equipoise may lead to incorrect inference in randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(3):280–5.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Leopold SS. Editorial: Getting evidence into practice—or not: the case of viscosupplementation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(2):285–8.CrossRef Leopold SS. Editorial: Getting evidence into practice—or not: the case of viscosupplementation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(2):285–8.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Handoll H, et al. Protocol for the ProFHER (PROximal Fracture of the Humerus: Evaluation by Randomisation) trial: a pragmatic multi-centre randomised controlled trial of surgical versus non-surgical treatment for proximal fracture of the humerus in adults. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009;10:140.CrossRef Handoll H, et al. Protocol for the ProFHER (PROximal Fracture of the Humerus: Evaluation by Randomisation) trial: a pragmatic multi-centre randomised controlled trial of surgical versus non-surgical treatment for proximal fracture of the humerus in adults. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009;10:140.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Handoll H, et al. The ProFHER (PROximal Fracture of the Humerus: Evaluation by Randomisation) trial: a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial evaluating the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical compared with non-surgical treatment for proximal fracture of the humerus in adults. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19(24):1–280.CrossRef Handoll H, et al. The ProFHER (PROximal Fracture of the Humerus: Evaluation by Randomisation) trial: a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial evaluating the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical compared with non-surgical treatment for proximal fracture of the humerus in adults. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19(24):1–280.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Rangan A, et al. Surgical vs nonsurgical treatment of adults with displaced fractures of the proximal humerus: the PROFHER randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;313(10):1037–47.CrossRef Rangan A, et al. Surgical vs nonsurgical treatment of adults with displaced fractures of the proximal humerus: the PROFHER randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;313(10):1037–47.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Neer CS 2nd. Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970;52(6):1077–89.CrossRef Neer CS 2nd. Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970;52(6):1077–89.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Carofino BC, Leopold SS. Classifications in brief: the Neer classification for proximal humerus fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(1):39–43.CrossRef Carofino BC, Leopold SS. Classifications in brief: the Neer classification for proximal humerus fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(1):39–43.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Strobel O, Buchler MW. The problem of the poor control arm in surgical randomized controlled trials. Br J Surg. 2013;100(2):172–3.CrossRef Strobel O, Buchler MW. The problem of the poor control arm in surgical randomized controlled trials. Br J Surg. 2013;100(2):172–3.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78(4):593–600.CrossRef Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78(4):593–600.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Dawson J, et al. The Oxford Shoulder Score revisited. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009;129(1):119–23.CrossRef Dawson J, et al. The Oxford Shoulder Score revisited. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009;129(1):119–23.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Costa ML, et al. Percutaneous fixation with Kirschner wires versus volar locking plate fixation in adults with dorsally displaced fracture of distal radius: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2014;349:g4807.CrossRef Costa ML, et al. Percutaneous fixation with Kirschner wires versus volar locking plate fixation in adults with dorsally displaced fracture of distal radius: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2014;349:g4807.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Abraham NS, et al. Non-entry of eligible patients into the Australasian Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Study. ANZ J Surg. 2006;76(9):825–9.CrossRef Abraham NS, et al. Non-entry of eligible patients into the Australasian Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Study. ANZ J Surg. 2006;76(9):825–9.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Brorson S, et al. Surgeons agree more on treatment recommendations than on classification of proximal humeral fractures. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:114.CrossRef Brorson S, et al. Surgeons agree more on treatment recommendations than on classification of proximal humeral fractures. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:114.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Ziebland S, et al. Does it matter if clinicians recruiting for a trial don’t understand what the trial is really about? Qualitative study of surgeons’ experiences of participation in a pragmatic multi-centre RCT. Trials. 2007;8:4.CrossRef Ziebland S, et al. Does it matter if clinicians recruiting for a trial don’t understand what the trial is really about? Qualitative study of surgeons’ experiences of participation in a pragmatic multi-centre RCT. Trials. 2007;8:4.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Jefferson L, et al. Impact of the PROFHER trial findings on surgeons’ clinical practice: an online questionnaire survey. Bone Joint Res. 2017;6(10):590–9.CrossRef Jefferson L, et al. Impact of the PROFHER trial findings on surgeons’ clinical practice: an online questionnaire survey. Bone Joint Res. 2017;6(10):590–9.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Frobell RB, et al. A randomized trial of treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tears. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(4):331–42.CrossRef Frobell RB, et al. A randomized trial of treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tears. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(4):331–42.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference King M, et al. Impact of participant and physician intervention preferences on randomized trials: a systematic review. JAMA. 2005;293(9):1089–99.CrossRef King M, et al. Impact of participant and physician intervention preferences on randomized trials: a systematic review. JAMA. 2005;293(9):1089–99.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Thorstensson CA, et al. Choosing surgery: patients’ preferences within a trial of treatments for anterior cruciate ligament injury. A qualitative study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009;10:100.CrossRef Thorstensson CA, et al. Choosing surgery: patients’ preferences within a trial of treatments for anterior cruciate ligament injury. A qualitative study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009;10:100.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The impact of surgeon and patient treatment preferences in an orthopaedic trauma surgery trial
Authors
Ada Keding
Helen Handoll
Stephen Brealey
Laura Jefferson
Catherine Hewitt
Belen Corbacho
David Torgerson
Amar Rangan
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3631-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Trials 1/2019 Go to the issue