{"id":5270,"date":"2025-02-23T14:09:00","date_gmt":"2025-02-23T14:09:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.orthogate.org\/press\/uncategorized\/proms-in-joint-arthroplasty-evaluation\/"},"modified":"2025-02-23T21:45:51","modified_gmt":"2025-02-23T21:45:51","slug":"proms-in-joint-arthroplasty-evaluation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.orthogate.org\/press\/deep-research\/joint-arthroplasty-balancing-innovation-and-evidence\/proms-in-joint-arthroplasty-evaluation\/","title":{"rendered":"PROMs in Joint Arthroplasty Evaluation"},"content":{"rendered":"

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Joint Arthroplasty<\/span><\/span><\/h1>\n

Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is a common and effective surgical procedure for treating end-stage joint diseases like osteoarthritis. Traditionally, the success of TJA was primarily evaluated based on objective measures such as implant survival, range of motion, and radiographic findings. However, with the shift towards patient-centered care, there is increasing emphasis on incorporating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess the true impact of TJA on patients’ lives. PROMs are standardized, validated questionnaires completed by patients to provide subjective assessments of their health status, functional abilities, and quality of life. This article will discuss the importance of PROMs in evaluating the success of joint arthroplasty, compare different PROMs, and discuss their utility in clinical practice and research.<\/span><\/p>\n

Importance of PROMs in Evaluating the Success of Joint Arthroplasty<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n

PROMs have emerged as essential tools for evaluating the success of TJA because they provide a comprehensive assessment of the patient’s experience, capturing aspects that may not be reflected in traditional clinical measures<\/span>1<\/sup><\/span>. A survey of 41 International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (ISAR) member registries showed that 8 registries administered a PROMs program that covered all elective hip or knee arthroplasty patients, and 6 registries collected PROMs for sample populations. One other registry had planned but had not started the collection of PROMs<\/span>2<\/sup><\/span>. This highlights the growing recognition of the importance of PROMs in evaluating joint arthroplasty outcomes.<\/span><\/p>\n

With the increase in PROMs utilization, it is prudent to develop a detailed understanding of their responsiveness to surgery<\/span>3<\/sup><\/span>. Although many validated PROMs exist, there remains no gold standard measure, alluding to the complexity of the task at hand and the need for increased research and understanding<\/span>1<\/sup><\/span>. It is also important to determine the optimal time point in the postoperative period at which PROMs reasonably reflect an accurate estimate of “success”.<\/span> 3<\/sup><\/span> This has implications for cost-saving opportunities, selecting an optimal time point to reflect the value added to patients, and ensuring that performance and reimbursement are determined based on the most accurate estimate of value added<\/span>3<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Here’s why PROMs are crucial in evaluating the success of TJA:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Capturing the Patient’s Perspective:<\/b><\/span> PROMs provide valuable insights into the patient’s perception of their condition and the impact of TJA on their daily lives. They capture aspects such as pain, stiffness, functional limitations, and overall well-being, which are essential for understanding the true impact of the surgery<\/span>4<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. Measuring Treatment Effectiveness:<\/b><\/span> PROMs can be used to measure the effectiveness of different interventions for joint arthroplasty. By comparing PROMs before and after surgery, clinicians and researchers can assess the extent to which the procedure has improved the patient’s symptoms and quality of life<\/span>3<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. Guiding Treatment Decisions:<\/b><\/span> PROMs can help guide treatment decisions and monitor patient progress. By tracking PROMs over time, clinicians can identify patients who are not responding well to treatment and adjust their management strategies accordingly<\/span>4<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
  4. Improving Patient Satisfaction:<\/b><\/span> By incorporating the patient’s perspective, PROMs can help improve patient satisfaction with TJA. When patients feel that their concerns and priorities are being addressed, they are more likely to be satisfied with the outcome of their surgery<\/span>5<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
  5. Facilitating Shared Decision-Making:<\/b><\/span> PROMs can facilitate shared decision-making between patients and clinicians. By providing patients with information about their condition and the potential benefits and risks of different treatment options, PROMs empower them to actively participate in their care<\/span>4<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
  6. Enhancing Value-Based Care:<\/b><\/span> PROMs are essential for value-based care, which emphasizes achieving the best possible outcomes for patients at the lowest possible cost. By incorporating PROMs into clinical practice, healthcare providers can demonstrate the value of TJA in terms of improved patient outcomes and satisfaction<\/span>3<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Different PROMs Used in Joint Arthroplasty<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n

    There are various PROMs available for evaluating joint arthroplasty, each with its own strengths and limitations. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has released guidance on the use of PROMs in evaluating medical devices, offering general considerations and best practices for selecting and using a PROM. This includes evaluating whether the PROM is fit for purpose and whether it will measure outcomes that matter to patients<\/span>6<\/sup><\/span>. It is important to note that administering numerous PROMs can be lengthy, potentially reducing the response rate and placing a burden on patients and providers<\/span>4<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Some of the commonly used PROMs include:<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. \n

      Generic PROMs:<\/b><\/span> These PROMs assess general health and well-being and can be used across different conditions. Examples include the Short Form health surveys (SF-36 or SF-12) and EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D)<\/span>7<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    2. \n

      Specific PROMs:<\/b><\/span> These PROMs focus on specific symptoms, diseases, or body regions. Examples include:<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    3. \n

      Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS):<\/b><\/span> Assesses pain, stiffness, and function in patients with hip osteoarthritis<\/span>2<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS):<\/b><\/span> Evaluates pain, symptoms, activities of daily living, sport and recreational function, and knee-related quality of life in patients with knee problems<\/span>2<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
      2. Oxford Hip Score (OHS):<\/b><\/span> Measures pain and function in patients with hip problems<\/span>2<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
      3. Oxford Knee Score (OKS):<\/b><\/span> Assesses pain and function in patients with knee problems<\/span>2<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
      4. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC):<\/b><\/span> Evaluates pain, stiffness, and physical function in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis<\/span>2<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
      5. University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score:<\/b><\/span> Measures the level of physical activity in patients with knee problems<\/span>3<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
      6. Knee Society Clinical Rating System (KSCRS):<\/b><\/span> Assesses pain, range of motion, stability, and function in patients with knee problems<\/span>3<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
      7. Forgotten Joint Score (FJS):<\/b><\/span> Measures the extent to which patients are aware of their artificial joint in everyday life<\/span>8<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n
      8. \n

        Health Transition Items:<\/b><\/span> These are another type of PROM that reflects a self-perceived change over a defined period<\/span>8<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Strengths and Limitations of PROMs<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n

        While PROMs offer valuable insights into the patient’s experience, it is essential to be aware of their strengths and limitations<\/span>9<\/sup><\/span>. It is important to acknowledge that ethical concerns may arise when patients are asked to complete measures that cannot effectively demonstrate treatment effects. Given the potential consequences of using PROMs that do not adequately reflect the patient’s perspective, prioritizing patient involvement in PROM development and selection is imperative<\/span>10<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

        Strengths:<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

          \n
        1. Patient-centered:<\/b><\/span> PROMs capture the patient’s perspective on their health and well-being<\/span>9<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
        2. Comprehensive:<\/b><\/span> PROMs can assess a wide range of outcomes, including physical, mental, and social well-being<\/span>11<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
        3. Standardized:<\/b><\/span> PROMs use standardized questionnaires, allowing for comparisons across different patients and studies<\/span>9<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
        4. Sensitive to Change:<\/b><\/span> PROMs can detect changes in patient outcomes over time<\/span>12<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Limitations:<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

            \n
          1. Subjectivity:<\/b><\/span> PROMs rely on patients’ self-reported experiences, which can be influenced by factors such as mood, expectations, and recall bias<\/span>13<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
          2. Responsiveness:<\/b><\/span> Some PROMs may not be responsive enough to detect small but meaningful changes in patient outcomes<\/span>12<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
          3. Ceiling Effects:<\/b><\/span> Some PROMs may have ceiling effects, meaning they are not able to discriminate between patients with high levels of functioning<\/span>11<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
          4. Missing Data:<\/b><\/span> Patients may not complete all items on a PROM, leading to missing data<\/span>14<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            Comparison of PROMs<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n

            When selecting a PROM for joint arthroplasty, it is essential to consider factors such as the specific needs of the patient population, the purpose of the assessment, and the psychometric properties of the instrument<\/span>6<\/sup><\/span>. Certain PROMs are knee-specific and can provide an estimate of overall knee health, or the severity of the knee pathology, from the patient’s perspective. These instruments can be used to identify what patients consider a clinically meaningful change \u2013 a personal threshold that can help determine if an intervention is appropriate or if less invasive treatment is warranted<\/span>15<\/sup><\/span>. However, it is important to note that tension exists between the minimal clinically important change in a patient’s condition and the substantial clinical benefit they may experience from an intervention<\/span>15<\/sup><\/span>. Statistically significant improvements are not necessarily clinically meaningful, and it is crucial to consider what constitutes a clinically meaningful change from the patient’s perspective<\/span>16<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

            Here’s a comparison of two commonly used PROMs for knee arthroplasty:<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
            Feature<\/b><\/span><\/th>\nOxford Knee Score (OKS)<\/b><\/span><\/th>\nForgotten Joint Score (FJS)<\/b><\/span><\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
            Focus<\/span><\/td>\nPain and function<\/span><\/td>\nKnee awareness in daily life<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
            Number of items<\/span><\/td>\n12<\/span><\/td>\n12<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
            Scoring<\/span><\/td>\n0-48 (worst-best)<\/span><\/td>\n0-100 (higher score indicates better ability to forget the joint)<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
            Ceiling effect<\/span><\/td>\nHigher<\/span><\/td>\nLower<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
            Strengths<\/span><\/td>\nWell-established, widely used, good validity and reliability<\/span><\/td>\nMay be more sensitive to subtle changes in knee function, lower ceiling effect<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
            Limitations<\/span><\/td>\nMay not capture the full impact of TJA on patients’ lives, higher ceiling effect<\/span><\/td>\nRelatively new, less widely used<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

            The OKS and FJS are both valid and reliable instruments for assessing outcomes after TKA<\/span>17<\/sup><\/span>. However, the FJS may be more sensitive to subtle changes in knee function and has a lower ceiling effect, meaning it is less likely to produce artificially high scores in patients with good outcomes<\/span>17<\/sup><\/span>. This makes the FJS potentially more useful for evaluating small differences in knee performance in patients with good clinical results<\/span>17<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

            Comparison of PROMs in Clinical Practice and Research<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n

            Generic and specific PROMs each have their own advantages and disadvantages in clinical practice and research. Generic PROMs are useful when comparing different groups of patients across different health conditions. However, they may be less sensitive to pick up important changes in specific aspects of health<\/span>11<\/sup><\/span>. On the other hand, disease-specific PROMs are not useful in comparing different groups of patients with different diseases; however, they are more likely to be sensitive to specific changes in health<\/span>11<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

            PROMs can be used in a variety of contexts, including:<\/span><\/p>\n

              \n
            1. Clinical trials:<\/b><\/span> In clinical trials, PROMs are increasingly used as primary or secondary endpoints to determine the effectiveness of interventions from the patient’s perspective<\/span>19<\/sup><\/span>. For example, in trials for new oncology drugs, PROMs can provide data on how treatment impacts patients’ symptom severity and quality of life, which is vital for regulatory approval and clinical practice<\/span>19<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
            2. Routine care:<\/b><\/span> In everyday healthcare settings, PROMs assist clinicians in monitoring disease progression and treatment response<\/span>19<\/sup><\/span>. For instance, in the management of chronic diseases such as diabetes, PROMs help track patients’ self-reported symptoms and functional status over time, guiding adjustments in treatment plans and enhancing patient engagement in their care<\/span>19<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
            3. Policy-making:<\/b><\/span> At the policy level, PROMs inform health services research and quality improvement initiatives. They…<\/span>source<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              When comparing different PROMs in terms of their utility in clinical practice and research, it is important to consider factors such as their sensitivity, responsiveness, and interpretability<\/span>12<\/sup><\/span>. Some PROMs may be more sensitive to change than others, meaning they are better able to detect small but meaningful improvements or deteriorations in patient outcomes<\/span>12<\/sup><\/span>. Responsiveness refers to the ability of a PROM to detect changes that are important to patients<\/span>12<\/sup><\/span>. Interpretability refers to the ease with which the results of a PROM can be understood and used to make clinical decisions<\/span>12<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

              Utility of PROMs in Clinical Practice<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n

              In clinical practice, PROMs are increasingly integrated as vital components of patient care and clinical decision-making<\/span>19<\/sup><\/span>. They serve not only to monitor disease and treatment response but also to guide clinical interventions and ongoing management strategies<\/span>19<\/sup><\/span>. PROMs can be used to:<\/span><\/p>\n

                \n
              1. Monitor Patient Progress:<\/b><\/span> By tracking PROMs over time, clinicians can monitor patients’ progress after TJA and identify those who are not responding well to treatment<\/span>20<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
              2. Guide Treatment Decisions:<\/b><\/span> PROMs can help guide treatment decisions, such as the need for further interventions or rehabilitation<\/span>20<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
              3. Facilitate Communication:<\/b><\/span> PROMs can facilitate communication between patients and clinicians, allowing for a more patient-centered approach to care<\/span>21<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
              4. Improve Patient Satisfaction:<\/b><\/span> By incorporating the patient’s perspective, PROMs can help improve patient satisfaction with TJA<\/span>22<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                Utility of PROMs in Research<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n

                In research, PROMs are used to:<\/span><\/p>\n

                  \n
                1. Evaluate the Effectiveness of Interventions:<\/b><\/span> PROMs can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of different interventions for joint arthroplasty, such as surgical techniques, rehabilitation programs, and pain management strategies<\/span>13<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
                2. Compare Outcomes:<\/b><\/span> PROMs allow researchers to compare outcomes across different patient populations and treatment groups<\/span>7<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
                3. Identify Predictors of Success:<\/b><\/span> PROMs can be used to identify factors that predict successful outcomes after TJA<\/span>7<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
                4. Develop New PROMs:<\/b><\/span> Researchers can use PROMs to develop new and improved instruments for assessing outcomes after joint arthroplasty<\/span>6<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                  Conclusion<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n

                  PROMs are essential tools for evaluating the success of joint arthroplasty. They provide a comprehensive assessment of the patient’s experience, capturing aspects that may not be reflected in traditional clinical measures. By incorporating PROMs into clinical practice and research, healthcare providers can improve patient-centered care, guide treatment decisions, and enhance the value of TJA. While PROMs have limitations, their strengths make them invaluable for understanding the true impact of TJA on patients’ lives.<\/span><\/p>\n

                  The use of PROMs in joint arthroplasty is an evolving field, with ongoing research and development of new and improved instruments. Emerging trends include the use of electronic PROMs, computer adaptive testing, and the integration of PROMs into electronic health records. These advancements have the potential to further enhance the utility of PROMs in clinical practice and research, allowing for more efficient data collection, personalized medicine, and value-based care. As the healthcare system continues to shift towards patient-centered care, PROMs will play an increasingly important role in ensuring that patients receive the best possible care and achieve optimal outcomes after joint arthroplasty.<\/span><\/p>\n

                  Works cited<\/span><\/h4>\n

                  1. Patient-reported outcome measures after total knee arthroplasty, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/ochipandknee.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Patient-reported-outcome-measures-after-total-knee-arthroplasty.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

                  2. Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries – Acta Orthopaedica, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/actaorthop.org\/actao\/article\/view\/9890<\/a><\/p>\n

                  3. Patient-reported outcome measures in total joint arthroplasty: defining the optimal collection window – PMC – PubMed Central, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC7083724\/<\/a><\/p>\n

                  4. Meaningful Clinical Applications of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Orthopaedics – Henry Ford Health, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/www.henryford.com\/-\/media\/files\/henry-ford\/about\/quality\/meaningful-clinical-applications-of.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

                  5. Patient-reported outcome measures following revision knee replacement: a review of PROM instrument utilisation and measurement properties using the COSMIN checklist | BMJ Open, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/bmjopen.bmj.com\/content\/11\/10\/e046169<\/a><\/p>\n

                  6. CORE-MD research showcases possibilities of patient-reported outcomes in high-risk device clinical investigations | AgencyIQ by POLITICO, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/www.agencyiq.com\/blog\/core-md-research-showcases-possibilities-of-patient-reported-outcomes-in-high-risk-device-clinical-investigations\/<\/a><\/p>\n

                  7. Report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries: Part II. Recommendations for selection, administration, and analysis – PMC, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC4937770\/<\/a><\/p>\n

                  8. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study protocol | BMJ Open, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/bmjopen.bmj.com\/content\/10\/12\/e040811<\/a><\/p>\n

                  9. Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) – PMC – PubMed Central, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC4089835\/<\/a><\/p>\n

                  10. Types of PROMs currently used in medical research. The range of… – ResearchGate, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/figure\/Types-of-PROMs-currently-used-in-medical-research-The-range-of-different-types-of_fig1_51492207<\/a><\/p>\n

                  11. About PROMs – Google Sites, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/sites.google.com\/ualberta.ca\/apersu\/about-proms<\/a><\/p>\n

                  12. Chapter 18: Patient-reported outcomes | Cochrane Training, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/training.cochrane.org\/handbook\/archive\/v6.2\/chapter-18<\/a><\/p>\n

                  13. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as proof of treatment efficacy | BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/ebm.bmj.com\/content\/27\/3\/153<\/a><\/p>\n

                  14. Key Considerations for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures – Petrie-Flom Center, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/petrieflom.law.harvard.edu\/2023\/11\/03\/key-considerations-for-patient-reported-outcome-measures\/<\/a><\/p>\n

                  15. Using PROMs to Guide Decision-Making in Total Knee Arthroplasty, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/news.hss.edu\/using-proms-to-guide-decision-making-in-total-knee-arthroplasty\/<\/a><\/p>\n

                  16. Minimal important change values for the Oxford Knee Score and the Forgotten Joint Score at 1 year after total knee replacement – PMC, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC6202761\/<\/a><\/p>\n

                  17. Good validity and reliability of the forgotten joint score in evaluating the outcome of total knee arthroplasty: A retrospective cross-sectional survey-based study, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC4900097\/<\/a><\/p>\n

                  18. Reduced joint awareness after total knee arthroplasty with a cruciate retaining design – Acta Orthopaedica Belgica, accessed February 17, 2025, http:\/\/www.actaorthopaedica.be\/assets\/3002\/17-Winnock.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

                  19. Voices that matter: The impact of patient-reported outcome measures on clinical decision-making – Baishideng Publishing Group, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/www.wjgnet.com\/2222-0682\/full\/v15\/i2\/98066.htm<\/a><\/p>\n

                  20. PROMs data: can it be used to make decisions for individual patients? A narrative review, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC6681163\/<\/a><\/p>\n

                  21. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as proof of treatment efficacy – PMC, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC9132863\/<\/a><\/p>\n

                  22. What are PROMs in healthcare? A comprehensive guide – Awell Health, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/awellhealth.com\/blog\/what-are-proms-in-healthcare-a-comprehensive-guide<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                  Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Joint Arthroplasty Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is a common and effective surgical procedure for treating end-stage joint diseases like osteoarthritis. Traditionally, the success of TJA was primarily evaluated based on objective measures such as implant survival, range of motion, and radiographic findings. However, with the shift towards patient-centered care, there is […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5310,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[527],"tags":[585,582,463,584,307,162,562,583,586,587],"class_list":["post-5270","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-joint-arthroplasty-balancing-innovation-and-evidence","tag-clinical-practice","tag-evaluation","tag-hip","tag-joint-arthroplasty","tag-knee","tag-osteoarthritis","tag-outcomes","tag-patient-reported-outcome-measures","tag-proms","tag-research"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.orthogate.org\/press\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5270","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.orthogate.org\/press\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.orthogate.org\/press\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.orthogate.org\/press\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.orthogate.org\/press\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5270"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.orthogate.org\/press\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5270\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.orthogate.org\/press\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5310"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.orthogate.org\/press\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5270"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.orthogate.org\/press\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5270"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.orthogate.org\/press\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5270"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}