IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0213510.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The development and internal validation of a model to predict functional recovery after trauma

Author

Listed:
  • Max W de Graaf
  • Inge H F Reininga
  • Erik Heineman
  • Mostafa El Moumni

Abstract

Objective: To develop and internally validate the PROgnosis of functional recovery after Trauma (PRO-Trauma) prediction model. Design: A prospective single-center longitudinal cohort study. Patients were assessed at 6 weeks and 12 months post-injury. Methods: Patients that presented at the emergency department with an acute traumatic injury, were prompted for participation. Patients that completed the assessments at 6 weeks and 12 months post injury were included. Exclusion criteria: age 65, pathologic fractures, injuries that resulted in severe neurologic deficits. The predicted outcome, functional recovery, was defined as a Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA-NL) Problems with Daily Activities (PDA) subscale ≤ 12.2 points at 12 months post-injury (Dutch population norm). Predictors were: gender, age, living with partner, number of chronic health conditions, SMFA-NL PDA score 6 weeks post-injury, ICU admission, length of stay in hospital, injury severity score, occurrence of complications and treatment type. All predictors were obtained before 6 weeks post-injury. Missing data were multiply imputed. Predictor variables were selected using backward stepwise multivariable logistic regression. Hosmer-Lemeshow tests were used to evaluate calibration. Bootstrap resampling was used to internally validate the final model. Results: A total of 246 patients were included, of which 104 (44%) showed functional recovery. The predictors in the final PRO-Trauma model were: living with partner, the number of chronic health conditions, SMFA-NL PDA subscale score at 6 weeks post-injury and length of stay in hospital. The apparent R2 was 0.33 [0.33;0.34], the c-statistic was 0.79 [0.79;0.80]. Hosmer-Lemeshow test indicated good calibration (p = 0.92). Optimism-corrected R2 was 0.28 [0.27;0.29] and the optimism-corrected Area Under the Curve was 0.77 [0.77;0.77]. Conclusion: The PRO-Trauma prediction model can be used to obtain valid predictions of attaining functional recovery after trauma at 12 months post-injury. The PRO-Trauma prediction model showed acceptable calibration and discrimination.

Suggested Citation

  • Max W de Graaf & Inge H F Reininga & Erik Heineman & Mostafa El Moumni, 2019. "The development and internal validation of a model to predict functional recovery after trauma," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-16, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0213510
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213510
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0213510
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0213510&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0213510?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nancy Devlin;John Appleby, 2010. "Getting the Most out of PROMs: Putting Health Outcomes at the Heart of NHS Decision-Making," Monograph 000220, Office of Health Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kirstie L. Haywood & Roger Wilson & Sophie Staniszewska & Sam Salek, 2016. "Using PROMs in Healthcare: Who Should Be in the Driving Seat—Policy Makers, Health Professionals, Methodologists or Patients?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(6), pages 495-498, December.
    2. Michela Luciana Luisa Zini & Giuseppe Banfi, 2021. "A Narrative Literature Review of Bias in Collecting Patient Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMs)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-12, November.
    3. Wei-Han Cheng & Haridarshan Patel & Wan-Ju Lee & Fang-Ju Lin & A. Pickard, 2015. "Positive Outcomes of Varicose Vein Surgery: The Patient Perspective," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(4), pages 329-337, August.
    4. Paul F M Krabbe, 2013. "A Generalized Measurement Model to Quantify Health: The Multi-Attribute Preference Response Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-12, November.
    5. Laika Köse Tamer & Gülten Sucu Dağ, 2020. "The Assessment of Pain and the Quality of Postoperative Pain Management in Surgical Patients," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(2), pages 21582440209, May.
    6. Madhavan, Naveen & White, Gareth R.T. & Jones, Paul, 2023. "Identifying the value of a clinical information system during the COVID-19 pandemic," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    7. Elizabeth Lumley & Patrick Phillips & Ahmed Aber & Helen Buckley‐Woods & Georgina L. Jones & Jonathan A. Michaels, 2019. "Experiences of living with varicose veins: A systematic review of qualitative research," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(7-8), pages 1085-1099, April.
    8. Stirling Bryan & Craig Mitton & Cam Donaldson, 2014. "Breaking The Addiction To Technology Adoption," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4), pages 379-383, April.
    9. Deepa Jahagirdar & Thilo Kroll & Karen Ritchie & Sally Wyke, 2013. "Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 6(1), pages 11-21, March.
    10. Nancy J. Devlin & Koonal K. Shah & Yan Feng & Brendan Mulhern & Ben van Hout, 2018. "Valuing health‐related quality of life: An EQ‐5D‐5L value set for England," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 7-22, January.
    11. Matthew Skellern, 2017. "The hospital as a multi-product firm: the effect of hospital competition on value-added indicators of clinical quality," CEP Discussion Papers dp1484, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    12. David Nuttall & David Parkin & Nancy Devlin, 2015. "Inter‐Provider Comparison Of Patient‐Reported Outcomes: Developing An Adjustment To Account For Differences In Patient Case Mix," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(1), pages 41-54, January.
    13. Ole Marten & Wolfgang Greiner, 2022. "Feasibility properties of the EQ-5D-3L and 5L in the general population: evidence from the GP Patient Survey on the impact of age," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-10, December.
    14. K. Klose & S. Kreimeier & U. Tangermann & I. Aumann & K. Damm, 2016. "Patient- and person-reports on healthcare: preferences, outcomes, experiences, and satisfaction – an essay," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.
    15. Moula, Zoe & Aithal, Supritha & Karkou, Vicky & Powell, Joanne, 2020. "A systematic review of child-focused outcomes and assessments of arts therapies delivered in primary mainstream schools," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    16. Anabela Coelho & Candan Kendir & Eliana Barrenho & Niek Klazinga & Cláudia Paiva & Joaquim Abreu de Sousa & Salomé Gonçalves-Monteiro & Patrícia Redondo & Ana Bastos & Armanda Nogueira & Fábio Botelho, 2023. "Patient-Reported Outcomes and Experiences Assessment in Women with Breast Cancer: Portuguese Case Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-11, February.
    17. Zoe Moula & Nicola Walshe & Elsa Lee, 2021. "Making Nature Explicit in Children’s Drawings of Wellbeing and Happy Spaces," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 14(4), pages 1653-1675, August.
    18. Leah Couzner & Maria Crotty & Richard Norman & Julie Ratcliffe, 2013. "A Comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and ICECAP-O in an Older Post-Acute Patient Population Relative to the General Population," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 415-425, August.
    19. Bischof, Anja & Salvi, Irene & Kuklinski, David & Vogel, Justus & Geissler, Alexander, 2023. "Design Principles of Clinical Dashboards Incorporating PROMs: Crafting and Elaborating the Potential of Clinical Dashboards Incorporating PROMs," Working Paper Series in Health Economics, Management and Policy 2023-05, University of St.Gallen, School of Medicine, Chair of Health Economics, Policy and Management.
    20. Sarah Derrett & Mike Herdman & Lucky G. Ngwira & Elizabeth Yohe Moore & Jennifer Jelsma, 2021. "A New Approach to Assessing Children’s Interpretation of Severity Qualifiers in a Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument–The EQ-5D-Y-5L: Development and Testing," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(5), pages 591-600, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0213510. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.