OBJECTIVES:To evaluate inter-rater reliability of the modified Radiographic Union Score for Tibial (mRUST) fractures among patients with open, diaphyseal tibia fractures with a bone defect treated with intramedullary nails (IMNs), plates, or definitive external fixation (ex-fix). DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING:Fifteen-level one civilian trauma centers; 2 military treatment facilities. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS:Patients ≥18 years old with open, diaphyseal tibia fractures with a bone defect ≥1 cm surgically treated between 2007 and 2012. INTERVENTION:Three of 6 orthopedic traumatologists reviewed and applied mRUST scoring criteria to radiographs from the last clinical visit within 13 months of injury. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS:Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Krippendorff's alpha (KA) statistic; intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) is presented for comparison with previous publications. RESULTS:Two hundred thirteen patients met inclusion criteria including 115 IMNs, 24 plates, 29 ex-fixes, and 45 cases that no longer had instrumentation at evaluation. All reviewers agreed on the pattern of scoreable cortices for 90.4% of IMNs, 88.9% of those without instrumentation, 44.8% of rings, and 20.8% of plates. Thirty-one (15%) cases, primarily plates and ex-fixes, did not contribute to KA and ICC estimates because <2 raters scored all cortices. The overall KA for the 85% that could be analyzed was 0.64 (ICC 0.71). For IMNs, plates, ex-fixes, and no instrumentation, KA (ICC) was 0.65 (0.75), 0.88 (0.90), 0.47 (0.62), and 0.48 (0.57), respectively. CONCLUSIONS:In tibia fractures with bone defects, the mRUST seems similarly reliable to previous work in patients treated with IMN but is less reliable in those with plates or ex-fixes, or after removal of instrumentation.

Level of evidence

Prognostic Level II.

Introduction

Cluster randomized crossover trials are often faced with a dilemma when selecting an optimal model of consent, as the traditional model of obtaining informed consent from participant's before initiating any trial related activities may not be suitable. We describe our experience of engaging patient advisors to identify an optimal model of consent for the PREP-IT trials. This paper also examines surrogate measures of success for the selected model of consent.

Methods

The PREP-IT program consists of two multi-center cluster randomized crossover trials that engaged patient advisors to determine an optimal model of consent. Patient advisors and stakeholders met regularly and reached consensus on decisions related to the trial design including the model for consent. Patient advisors provided valuable insight on how key decisions on trial design and conduct would be received by participants and the impact these decisions will have.

Results

Patient advisors, together with stakeholders, reviewed the pros and cons and the requirements for the traditional model of consent, deferred consent, and waiver of consent. Collectively, they agreed upon a deferred consent model, in which patients may be approached for consent after their fracture surgery and prior to data collection. The consent rate in PREP-IT is 80.7%, and 0.67% of participants have withdrawn consent for participation.

Discussion

Involvement of patient advisors in the development of an optimal model of consent has been successful. Engagement of patient advisors is recommended for other large trials where the traditional model of consent may not be optimal.

Introduction

Pragmatic trials in comparative effectiveness research assess the effects of different treatment, therapeutic, or healthcare options in clinical practice. They are characterized by broad eligibility criteria and large sample sizes, which can lead to an unmanageable number of participants, increasing the risk of bias and affecting the integrity of the trial. We describe the development of a sampling strategy tool and its use in the PREPARE trial to circumvent the challenge of unmanageable work flow.

Methods

Given the broad eligibility criteria and high fracture volume at participating clinical sites in the PREPARE trial, a pragmatic sampling strategy was needed. Using data from PREPARE, descriptive statistics were used to describe the use of the sampling strategy across clinical sites. A Chi-square test was performed to explore whether use of the sampling strategy was associated with a reduction in the number of missed eligible patients.

Results

7 of 20 clinical sites (35%) elected to adopt a sampling strategy. There were 1539 patients excluded due to the use of the sampling strategy, which represents 30% of all excluded patients and 20% of all patients screened for participation. Use of the sampling strategy was associated with lower odds of missed eligible patients (297/4545 (6.5%) versus 341/3200 (10.7%) p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Implementing a sampling strategy in the PREPARE trial has helped to limit the number of missed eligible patients. This sampling strategy represents a simple, easy to use tool for managing work flow at clinical sites and maintaining the integrity of a large trial.