Patient-Centered Enrollment in Comparative Effectiveness Trials: Mathematical Equipoise [Methods Study], Massachusetts, 2013-2018 (ICPSR 39483)
Version Date: Sep 4, 2025 View help for published
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s)
Harry P. Selker, Tufts Medical Center
https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR39483.v1
Version V1
Summary View help for Summary
Comparative effectiveness research compares two or more treatments to see which one works better for certain patients. This research may include randomized controlled trials, or RCTs, in which researchers assign patients to one of the treatments by chance.
A patient may enroll in an RCT when, based on current knowledge of that patient's traits, the treatments being tested have about the same chance of helping. If one treatment is known to have a better chance of helping a patient, then the patient would not enroll and would receive that treatment from the doctor.
Sometimes there isn't enough research to show if one treatment has a better chance of helping than another. In this case, researchers may use computer programs. The programs estimate how well different treatments work in patients with certain traits. For example, a person's age and pain level may affect how much a treatment helps.
These programs would be useful for patients with knee osteoarthritis. Not many RCTs have compared total knee replacement surgery with other treatments such as medicine or physical therapy.
In this study, the research team made a computer program for patients with knee osteoarthritis. It uses data from electronic health records. The program could help identify patients for whom
The research team also made an online system based on the program for patients and doctors to use during a visit. Doctors can use the results from the system to talk with patients about treatment. If appropriate, they could talk about taking part in an RCT.
Citation View help for Citation
Export Citation:
Funding View help for Funding
Subject Terms View help for Subject Terms
Geographic Coverage View help for Geographic Coverage
Distributor(s) View help for Distributor(s)
Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose
This project aimed to use mathematical equipoise for making patient-specific comparisons of alternative treatment outcomes of TKR versus nonsurgical treatment of knee osteoarthritis as a way to consider enrollment into a comparative effectiveness RCT. The study aims were: (1) To use nonrandomized data from patients with knee osteoarthritis to create models that predict patient-specific outcomes of different treatment options; (2) To use the models to develop software to help identify patients who may be eligible to enroll in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Study Design View help for Study Design
When conducting RCTs to compare treatments, researchers must recruit only patients with clinical equipoise, that is, patients for whom insufficient evidence exists to favor one treatment over another. When limited prior RCT evidence is available to identify patients with clinical equipoise, researchers can apply mathematical models to clinical registries, electronic health records (EHRs), and other non-RCT data to predict patient-specific outcomes of the treatments under study. If predicted outcomes are similar across treatments, called mathematical equipoise, random treatment assignment may be appropriate, and patients may wish to consider participating in an RCT.
For patients with knee osteoarthritis, the choice between total knee replacement and nonsurgical treatment is an important clinical question for which there are few RCTs. Nonsurgical treatment may include medication and/or physical therapy. In this study, the researchers developed Knee Osteoarthritis Mathematical Equipoise Tool (KOMET) software, with accompanying clinician and patient web-based interfaces, for use in EHR systems to
To develop KOMET, the researchers used nonrandomized data from four databases to match total-knee-replacement knees to similar nonsurgical-treatment knees. The researchers then developed models to predict one-year outcomes for knee pain and functional status, modeling each outcome separately. Analysis consisted of three rounds of predictive modeling based on estimation and testing using data from various combinations of the four available databases. After identifying optimal prediction models for each outcome, the researchers programmed associated algorithms into the KOMET software.
During the study, knee osteoarthritis researchers, patients, clinicians, and patient advocates provided input on study questions, modeling issues, outcomes, and user interface development.
Universe View help for Universe
Consolidated database of 1,452 patient knees, half treated with a total knee replacement and the other half with non-surgical treatment using 4 databases.
Data Source View help for Data Source
A consolidated database of 1,452 patient knees, half with total knee replacement and half with nonsurgical treatment, from 1,322 patients, combining data from 4 databases: Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study, Osteoarthritis Initiative, New England Baptist Hospital Orthopedic Registry, and Tufts Medical Center Orthopedic Surgery Registry
Notes
The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.
ICPSR usually offers files in multiple formats for researchers to be able to access data and documentation in formats that work well within their needs. If you have questions about the accessibility of materials distributed by ICPSR or require further assistance, please visit ICPSR’s Accessibility Center.