Mukka Sebastian, Sjöholm Pontus, Chammout Ghazi, Kelly-Pettersson Paula, Sayed-Noor Arkan S, Sköldenberg Olof
Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Departments of Orthopedics and Clinical Sciences at Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
JB JS Open Access. 2019 Jun 7;4(2):e0061. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.18.00061. eCollection 2019 Apr-Jun.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the most reliable way of evaluating the effect of new treatments by comparing them with previously accepted treatment regimens. The results obtained from an RCT are extrapolated from the study environment to the general health care system. The ability to do so is called external validity. We sought to evaluate the external validity of an RCT comparing the results of total hip arthroplasty with those of hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in patients ≥80 years of age.
This prospective, single-center cohort study included 183 patients ≥80 years of age who had a displaced femoral neck fracture. All patients were screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria for an RCT comparing total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty. The population for this study consisted of patients who gave their informed consent and were randomized into the RCT (consenting group, 120 patients) as well as those who declined to give their consent to participate (non-consenting group, 63 patients). The outcome measurements were mortality, complications, and patient-reported outcome measures. Follow-up was carried out postoperatively with use of a mailed survey that included patient-reported outcome questionnaires.
We found a statistically significant and clinically relevant difference between the groups, with the non-consenting group having a higher risk of death compared with the consenting group. (hazard ratio, 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.9 to 11.1). No differences were found between the groups in terms of patient-reported outcome measures or surgical complications.
This cohort study indicates a higher mortality rate but comparable hip function and quality of life among eligible non-consenters as compared with eligible consenters when evaluating the external validity of an RCT in patients ≥80 years of age with femoral neck fracture.
Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
随机对照试验(RCT)是通过将新治疗方法与先前公认的治疗方案进行比较来评估其效果的最可靠方法。从RCT获得的结果从研究环境外推至整个医疗保健系统。这样做的能力称为外部效度。我们试图评估一项RCT的外部效度,该RCT比较了全髋关节置换术与半髋关节置换术治疗80岁及以上移位型股骨颈骨折患者的结果。
这项前瞻性、单中心队列研究纳入了183例80岁及以上的移位型股骨颈骨折患者。所有患者均根据一项比较全髋关节置换术和半髋关节置换术的RCT的纳入和排除标准进行筛选。本研究的人群包括给予知情同意并被随机纳入RCT的患者(同意组,120例患者)以及拒绝给予同意参与的患者(不同意组,63例患者)。结局指标为死亡率、并发症以及患者报告的结局指标。术后通过邮寄调查进行随访,调查包括患者报告的结局问卷。
我们发现两组之间存在统计学上显著且具有临床相关性的差异,不同意组的死亡风险高于同意组。(风险比,4.6;95%置信区间,1.9至11.1)。在患者报告的结局指标或手术并发症方面,两组之间未发现差异。
这项队列研究表明,在评估80岁及以上股骨颈骨折患者RCT的外部效度时,与符合条件的同意者相比,符合条件的不同意者死亡率更高,但髋关节功能和生活质量相当。
治疗性II级。有关证据水平的完整描述,请参阅作者须知。