The relationship between publication of high-quality evidence and changes in the volume and trend of subacromial decompression surgery for patients with subacromial pain syndrome in hospitals across Australia, Europe and the United States: a controlled interrupted time series analysis

Abstract

Aims

To evaluate the extent to which publication of high-quality randomised controlled trials(RCTs) in 2018 was associated with a change in volume or trend of subacromial decompression(SAD) surgery in patients with subacromial pain syndrome(SAPS) treated in hospitals across various countries.

Methods

Routinely collected administrative data of the Global Health Data@work collaborative were used to identify SAPS patients who underwent SAD surgery in six hospitals from five countries (Australia, Belgium, Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States) between 01/2016 and 02/2020. Following a controlled interrupted time series design, segmented Poisson regression was used to compare trends in monthly SAD surgeries before(01/2016-01/2018) and after(02/2018-02/2020) publication of the RCTs. The control group consisted of musculoskeletal patients undergoing other procedures.

Results

A total of 3.046 SAD surgeries were performed among SAPS patients treated in five hospitals; one hospital did not perform any SAD surgeries. Overall, publication of trial results was associated with a significant reduction in the trend to use SAD surgery of 2% per month (Incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.984[0.971–0.998]; P = 0.021), but with large variation between hospitals. No changes in the control group were observed. However, publication of trial results was also associated with a 2% monthly increased trend (IRR 1.019[1.004–1.034]; P = 0.014) towards other procedures performed in SAPS patients.

Conclusion

Publication of RCT results was associated with a significantly decreased trend in SAD surgery for SAPS patients, although large variation between participating hospitals existed and a possible shift in coding practices cannot be ruled out. This highlights the complexities of implementing recommendations to change routine clinical practice even if based on high-quality evidence.