BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Lower Extremity Gain Scale (LEGS) is a performance measure of tasks that are often impaired in hip fracture patients. This study was designed to determine a clinically meaningful difference in LEGS. METHODS: The population was 139 female patients (age >65 years) admitted to Baltimore hospitals. Recovery levels were estimated by fitting trajectory curves for the cohort for the 12 months post fracture. The clinically meaningful difference was evaluated using an anchor-based approach, examining the relationship between the LEGS recovery level and age. A second, distribution-based method used an effect size of .20. RESULTS: According to our model, a difference of 5 years in age corresponded to a difference of 1.6-3.6 points in LEGS scores. The standard deviation for LEGS at 12 months was 8.0; thus, Cohen's effect size of 0.2 would equate to a difference of 1.6 points. CONCLUSION: This suggests that a clinically meaningful difference in the LEGS scores for a population in this age range would be 2-3 points.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Lower Extremity Gain Scale (LEGS) is a performance measure of tasks that are often impaired in hip fracturepatients. This study was designed to determine a clinically meaningful difference in LEGS. METHODS: The population was 139 female patients (age >65 years) admitted to Baltimore hospitals. Recovery levels were estimated by fitting trajectory curves for the cohort for the 12 months post fracture. The clinically meaningful difference was evaluated using an anchor-based approach, examining the relationship between the LEGS recovery level and age. A second, distribution-based method used an effect size of .20. RESULTS: According to our model, a difference of 5 years in age corresponded to a difference of 1.6-3.6 points in LEGS scores. The standard deviation for LEGS at 12 months was 8.0; thus, Cohen's effect size of 0.2 would equate to a difference of 1.6 points. CONCLUSION: This suggests that a clinically meaningful difference in the LEGS scores for a population in this age range would be 2-3 points.
Authors: L Reider; W Hawkes; J R Hebel; C D'Adamo; J Magaziner; R Miller; D Orwig; D E Alley Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Barbara Resnick; N Jennifer Klinedinst; Laura Yerges-Armstrong; Jay Magaziner; Denise Orwig; Marc C Hochberg; Ann L Gruber-Baldini; Susan G Dorsey Journal: Int J Orthop Trauma Nurs Date: 2019-03-23
Authors: Ram R Miller; Michelle D Shardell; Gregory E Hicks; Anne R Cappola; William G Hawkes; Janet A Yu-Yahiro; Jay Magaziner Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2008-04-11 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Ram R Miller; Shoshana H Ballew; Michelle D Shardell; Gregory E Hicks; William G Hawkes; Barbara Resnick; Jay Magaziner Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2009-07-08 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: I Putu Gde Surya Adhitya; Wen-Yu Yu; Putu Ayu Sita Saraswati; I Made Niko Winaya; Mau-Roung Lin Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2021-08-04 Impact factor: 2.303