BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to validate the Knee Society Clinical Rating System (knee and function scores) and to compare its responsiveness with that of the Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36). METHODS: Patients were recruited as part of a prospective observational study of the outcomes of primary total knee arthroplasty for the treatment of osteoarthritis in four centers in the United States, six centers in the United Kingdom, and two centers in Australia. Independent research assistants at each site collected the Knee Society clinical data. The WOMAC, SF-36, patient satisfaction, and demographic data were obtained with self-administered questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 862 eligible patients were recruited, and complete preoperative and twelve-month data were available for 697 (80.9%) of them. The mean age was seventy years (range, thirty-eight to ninety years), and the majority of the patients (58.9%) were women. Low correlations were found among the items of both the knee and the function score at both assessment times. The Knee Society pain and function scores had moderate-to-strong correlations with the corresponding pain and function domains of the WOMAC and SF-36 (r = 0.31 to 0.72). Measurement of the standardized response mean showed the Knee Society knee score to be more responsive (standardized response mean, 2.2) than the WOMAC (standardized response means, 2.0 for pain and 1.4 for function) and the SF-36 (standardized response means, 1.0 for bodily pain and 1.1 for physical functioning). The Knee Society function score was the least responsive measure (standardized response mean, 0.8). Correlation of changes in scores at twelve months with patient reports of satisfaction and improvement in health status showed the WOMAC and SF-36 to be more responsive than the Knee Society scores. CONCLUSIONS: There is a poor correlation among the items of the Knee Society Clinical Rating System, but the rating system has adequate convergent construct validity. The WOMAC and SF-36 are more responsive measures of outcome of total knee arthroplasty. As they are less labor-intensive for researchers to use and as use of these instruments removes observer bias from the study design, they are preferable for knee arthroplasty outcome studies.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to validate the Knee Society Clinical Rating System (knee and function scores) and to compare its responsiveness with that of the Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36). METHODS:Patients were recruited as part of a prospective observational study of the outcomes of primary total knee arthroplasty for the treatment of osteoarthritis in four centers in the United States, six centers in the United Kingdom, and two centers in Australia. Independent research assistants at each site collected the Knee Society clinical data. The WOMAC, SF-36, patient satisfaction, and demographic data were obtained with self-administered questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 862 eligible patients were recruited, and complete preoperative and twelve-month data were available for 697 (80.9%) of them. The mean age was seventy years (range, thirty-eight to ninety years), and the majority of the patients (58.9%) were women. Low correlations were found among the items of both the knee and the function score at both assessment times. The Knee Society pain and function scores had moderate-to-strong correlations with the corresponding pain and function domains of the WOMAC and SF-36 (r = 0.31 to 0.72). Measurement of the standardized response mean showed the Knee Society knee score to be more responsive (standardized response mean, 2.2) than the WOMAC (standardized response means, 2.0 for pain and 1.4 for function) and the SF-36 (standardized response means, 1.0 for bodily pain and 1.1 for physical functioning). The Knee Society function score was the least responsive measure (standardized response mean, 0.8). Correlation of changes in scores at twelve months with patient reports of satisfaction and improvement in health status showed the WOMAC and SF-36 to be more responsive than the Knee Society scores. CONCLUSIONS: There is a poor correlation among the items of the Knee Society Clinical Rating System, but the rating system has adequate convergent construct validity. The WOMAC and SF-36 are more responsive measures of outcome of total knee arthroplasty. As they are less labor-intensive for researchers to use and as use of these instruments removes observer bias from the study design, they are preferable for knee arthroplasty outcome studies.
Authors: James A Keeney; Selena Eunice; Gail Pashos; Rick W Wright; John C Clohisy Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2010-09-03 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Juergen Götz; Johannes Beckmann; Ingo Sperrer; Clemens Baier; Silvia Dullien; Joachim Grifka; Franz Koeck Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2015-12-19 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Philip C Noble; Giles R Scuderi; Adam C Brekke; Alla Sikorskii; James B Benjamin; Jess H Lonner; Priya Chadha; Daniel A Daylamani; W Norman Scott; Robert B Bourne Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Celeste L Overbeek; Sjoerd P F T Nota; Prakash Jayakumar; Michiel G Hageman; David Ring Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 4.176