Feasibility of 4 patient-reported outcome measures in a registry setting A cross-sectional study of 6,000 patients from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry

Background and purpose Feasibility is an important parameter when choosing which patient-reported outcomes (PRO) to use in a study. We assessed the feasibility of PROs in a hip registry setting. Methods Primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients (n = 5,747) who had been operated on 1-2, 5-6, or 10-11 years previously were randomly selected from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register and sent 2 PRO questionnaires: 1 generic (EuroQoL-5D or SF-12 health survey) and 1 disease-specific (hip dysfunction and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS) or Oxford 12-item hip score). We compared response rates, floor and ceiling effects, missing items, and the need for manual validation of forms. Results 4,784 patients (mean age 71 years, 57% females) were included (83%). The response rates ranged from 82-84%. Statistically significantly different floor and ceiling effects ranged from 0% to 0.5% and from 6.1% to 46%, respectively. Missing items ranged from 1.2% to 3.4%, and 0.8-4.3% required manual validation (p < 0.009). A hypothetical repeat study found that group sizes from 51 to 1,566 are needed for subgroup analysis, depending on descriptive factor and choice of PRO. Interpretation All 4 PROs fulfilled a priori set criteria, with the exception of ceiling effects. The high ceiling effects were attributed to postoperative administration and good outcome for THA. We conclude that all 4 PROs are appropriate for administration in a hip registry.