Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

The use of patient-specific equipoise to support shared decision-making for clinical care and enrollment into clinical trials

  • Harry P. Selker (a1) (a2), Denise H. Daudelin (a1) (a2), Robin Ruthazer (a1), Manlik Kwong (a1) (a2), Rebecca C. Lorenzana (a1), Daniel J. Hannon (a3), John B. Wong (a1) (a2) (a4), David M. Kent (a5), Norma Terrin (a1) (a2), Alejandro D. Moreno-Koehler (a1) and Timothy E. McAlindon (a6)...

Abstract

Background:

To enhance enrollment into randomized clinical trials (RCTs), we proposed electronic health record-based clinical decision support for patient–clinician shared decision-making about care and RCT enrollment, based on “mathematical equipoise.”

Objectives:

As an example, we created the Knee Osteoarthritis Mathematical Equipoise Tool (KOMET) to determine the presence of patient-specific equipoise between treatments for the choice between total knee replacement (TKR) and nonsurgical treatment of advanced knee osteoarthritis.

Methods:

With input from patients and clinicians about important pain and physical function treatment outcomes, we created a database from non-RCT sources of knee osteoarthritis outcomes. We then developed multivariable linear regression models that predict 1-year individual-patient knee pain and physical function outcomes for TKR and for nonsurgical treatment. These predictions allowed detecting mathematical equipoise between these two options for patients eligible for TKR. Decision support software was developed to graphically illustrate, for a given patient, the degree of overlap of pain and functional outcomes between the treatments and was pilot tested for usability, responsiveness, and as support for shared decision-making.

Results:

The KOMET predictive regression model for knee pain had four patient-specific variables, and an r2 value of 0.32, and the model for physical functioning included six patient-specific variables, and an r2 of 0.34. These models were incorporated into prototype KOMET decision support software and pilot tested in clinics, and were generally well received.

Conclusions:

Use of predictive models and mathematical equipoise may help discern patient-specific equipoise to support shared decision-making for selecting between alternative treatments and considering enrollment into an RCT.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      The use of patient-specific equipoise to support shared decision-making for clinical care and enrollment into clinical trials
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      The use of patient-specific equipoise to support shared decision-making for clinical care and enrollment into clinical trials
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      The use of patient-specific equipoise to support shared decision-making for clinical care and enrollment into clinical trials
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Corresponding author

*Address for correspondence: Harry P. Selker, Email: hselker@tuftsmedicalcenter.org

References

Hide All
1.Selker, HP, et al. Random treatment assignment using mathematical equipoise for comparative effectiveness trials. Clinical and Translational Science 2011; 4(1): 1016.
2.Kent, DM, et al. A percutaneous coronary intervention-thrombolytic predictive instrument to assist choosing between immediate thrombolytic therapy versus delayed primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction. The American Journal of Cardiology 2008; 101(6): 790795.
3.Selker, HP, et al. Use of the acute cardiac ischemia time-insensitive predictive instrument (ACI-TIPI) to assist with triage of patients with chest pain or other symptoms suggestive of acute cardiac ischemia. A multicenter, controlled clinical trial. Annals of Internal Medicine 1998; 129(11): 845855.
4.Selker, HP, et al. Patient-specific predictions of outcomes in myocardial infarction for real-time emergency use: a thrombolytic predictive instrument. Annals of Internal Medicine 1997; 127(7): 538556.
5.Selker, HP, Beshansky, JR, Griffith, JL, Investigators TPIT. Use of the electrocardiograph-based thrombolytic predictive instrument to assist thrombolytic and reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarction. A multicenter, randomized, controlled, clinical effectiveness trial. Annals of Internal Medicine 2002; 137(2): 8795.
6.Stacey, D, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014; (1): CD001431.
7.Charles, C, Gafni, A, Whelan, T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Social Science & Medicine 1997; 44(5): 681692.
8.Selten, EM, et al. Reasons for treatment choices in knee and hip osteoarthritis: a qualitative study. Arthritis Care & Research 2016; 68(9): 12601267.
9.Weng, HH, et al. Development of a decision aid to address racial disparities in utilization of knee replacement surgery. Arthritis and Rheumatism 2007; 57(4): 568575.
10.Eyles, JP, et al. Can we predict those with osteoarthritis who will worsen following a chronic disease management program? Arthritis Care & Research 2016; 68(9): 12681277.
11.Fagerlin, A, et al. Patients’ knowledge about 9 common health conditions: the DECISIONS survey. Med Decis Making 2010; 30(5 Suppl): 35S52S.
12.Lawrence, RC, et al. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States. Part II. Arthritis and Rheumatism 2008; 58(1): 2635.
13.Guccione, AA, et al. The effects of specific medical conditions on the functional limitations of elders in the Framingham Study. American Journal of Public Health 1994; 84(3): 351358.
14.HJ, M. Clinical features of osteoarthritis In: Kelly, WN, Harris, ED, Ruddy, S, Sledge, CB, eds. Textbook of Rheumatology. 4th Ed. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Co.; 1993;13741384.
15.The Incidence and Prevalence Database for Procedures. Sunnyvale, CA: Timely Data Resources; 1995.
16.Kosorok, MR, et al. Restricted activity days among older adults. American Journal of Public Health 1992; 82(9): 12631267.
17.Kramer, JS, Yelin, EH, Epstein, WV. Social and economic impacts of four musculoskeletal conditions. A study using national community-based data. Arthritis and Rheumatism 1983; 26(7): 901907.
18.HCUPnet. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project U.S. Department of Health & Human Services 2014. Retrieved from https://hcupnet.ahrq.gov/#setup. Accessed April 25, 2017.
19.Deverka, PA, et al. Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research 2012; 1(2): 181194.
20.Ruthazer, R, et al. Development of Predictive Models for Use with Shared Decision Support Tool: Case Study. In progress.
21.Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study (MOST). 2009. Retrieved from http://most.ucsf.edu/. Accessed October 5, 2018.
22.The Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI). 2013. Retrieved from https://data-archive.nimh.nih.gov/oai/. Accessed October 5, 2018.
23.Richmond, J. New England Baptist Hospital (NEBH) Orthopedic Surgery Registry. 2004. Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
24.Tufts Medical Center (TMC) Orthopedic Surgery Registry. 2007. Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
25.Bellamy, N. WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index. Retrieved from http://www.womac.org/womac/index.htm. Accessed February 22, 2017.
26.Ware, JEJ. SF-12 Health Survey. Retrieved from http://www.outcomes-trust.org/instruments.htm#SF-12. Accessed February 22, 2017.
27.Ware, J Jr., Kosinski, M, Keller, SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Medical Care 1996; 34(3): 220233.
28.Lacson, E Jr., et al. A comparison of SF-36 and SF-12 composite scores and subsequent hospitalization and mortality risks in long-term dialysis patients. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 2010; 5(2): 252260.
30.Riddle, DL, Kong, X, Jiranek, WA. Factors associated with rapid progression to knee arthroplasty: complete analysis of three-year data from the osteoarthritis initiative. Joint Bone Spine 2012; 79(3): 298303.
31.Stuart, EA. Matching methods for causal inference: a review and a look forward. Statistical Science 2010; 25(1): 121.
32.Selker, HP, et al. A comparison of performance of mathematical predictive methods for medical diagnosis: identifying acute cardiac ischemia among emergency department patients. Journal of Investigative Medicine. 1995; 43(5): 468476.
33.Brazier, JE, et al. Generic and condition-specific outcome measures for people with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology 1999; 38(9): 870877.
34.Bombardier, C, et al. Comparison of a generic and a disease-specific measure of pain and physical function after knee replacement surgery. Medical Care 1995; 33(4 Suppl): AS131AS144.
35.Binkley, JM, et al. The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network. Physical Therapy 1999; 79(4): 371383.
36.Patrick, DL, Deyo, RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Medical Care 1989; 27(3 Suppl): S217S232.
37.Jiang, F, et al. Artificial intelligence in healthcare: past, present and future. Stroke and Vascular Neurology 2017; 2(4): 230243.

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed