Reports on Outcomes Studies and Evaluation: The Basic

15 Feb 2008

Nobody on earth would be foolish enough to compare the production of carrots in a small farm in northern France, with growth rates of rabbits in a farming in Ardeche, in order to define the merits of fishing quotas mackerel in the North Atlantic. It’s (almost) what we can usually read while checking the results of prosthetic implants, as published in the scientific literature itself, from different series, grouping variables analyzed along sometimes divergent criteria, and anyway serving as absolute references to the famous meta-analysis, so dear to our speakers …

These results are indeed too often marred by three levels of subjectivity: (1) the answers sometimes unconsciously biased by our patients, (2) interpretations sometimes (unconsciously?) biased by the evaluator at the analysis of figures and results, and (3) the presentation of some protocol by highly variable according to the various authors. The discussion of the various parameters required for any study, and how they are presented leading to a well regarded and accepted consensus would certainly limit at least the last two levels of subjectivity.

It appeared useful under the aegis of the Société Française de la Hanche et du Genou (SFHG) to provide a “state of the art” of the current presentations of our results in the realm of prosthetic joints, while pointing some really too vague assessments, or protocols never really validated. This has to be considered as legitimate, being said that this presentation of results becomes a critical issue, since it interferes with a direct assessment of prosthetic joints.

Ah! Evaluation … What a masterword nowadays ! …

This “Proposals for Reports of Hip Arthroplasty Results” has been published in issue No. 171 of February 2008 and can be accessed in full on the site of Maîtrise Orthopédique in French version. For English version, please contact us via the OW web site