PURPOSE: To compare the psychometric properties of the Hughston Clinic Questionnaire (HCQ), EQ-5D and SF-6D in patients following arthroscopic partial meniscectomy surgery. METHODS: A total of 84 participants (86% men; mean age 40) were recruited. The questionnaires were completed on average 5 days, 6 weeks and 6 months after surgery and compared for internal consistency, convergent validity, sensitivity to change and floor and ceiling effects. RESULTS: Internally, the HCQ was the most consistent instrument (α = 0.923) followed by the SF-6D and EQ-5D. The EQ-5D and SF-6D were moderately correlated with the HCQ (ρ = 0.499 and 0.394, respectively). Six weeks after surgery, the most sensitive measures were the HCQ and EQ-5D (effect size: 2.04 and 0.99, respectively), at 6 months, with a smaller cohort (n = 42), again it was the HCQ and EQ-5D (effect size: 2.03 and 1.04, respectively). The SF-6D demonstrated no ceiling or floor effect during the study; the HCQ demonstrated a ceiling affect for 5% of respondents at 6 months after surgery compared to 26% of respondents for the EQ-5D. CONCLUSION: For this patient population, our findings indicated that the EQ-5D was more consistently responsive to change over time, as a utility index was better at distinguishing differences between groups and reflected the results of the joint-specific HCQ for knee recovery better than the SF-6D. It is therefore recommended that for similar populations, the EQ-5D is preferable to the SF-6D for utilisation alongside the HCQ.
PURPOSE: To compare the psychometric properties of the Hughston Clinic Questionnaire (HCQ), EQ-5D and SF-6D in patients following arthroscopic partial meniscectomy surgery. METHODS: A total of 84 participants (86% men; mean age 40) were recruited. The questionnaires were completed on average 5 days, 6 weeks and 6 months after surgery and compared for internal consistency, convergent validity, sensitivity to change and floor and ceiling effects. RESULTS: Internally, the HCQ was the most consistent instrument (α = 0.923) followed by the SF-6D and EQ-5D. The EQ-5D and SF-6D were moderately correlated with the HCQ (ρ = 0.499 and 0.394, respectively). Six weeks after surgery, the most sensitive measures were the HCQ and EQ-5D (effect size: 2.04 and 0.99, respectively), at 6 months, with a smaller cohort (n = 42), again it was the HCQ and EQ-5D (effect size: 2.03 and 1.04, respectively). The SF-6D demonstrated no ceiling or floor effect during the study; the HCQ demonstrated a ceiling affect for 5% of respondents at 6 months after surgery compared to 26% of respondents for the EQ-5D. CONCLUSION: For this patient population, our findings indicated that the EQ-5D was more consistently responsive to change over time, as a utility index was better at distinguishing differences between groups and reflected the results of the joint-specific HCQ for knee recovery better than the SF-6D. It is therefore recommended that for similar populations, the EQ-5D is preferable to the SF-6D for utilisation alongside the HCQ.
Authors: Dinesh Khanna; Xiaohong Yan; Donald P Tashkin; Daniel E Furst; Robert Elashoff; Michael D Roth; Richard Silver; Charlie Strange; Marcy Bolster; James R Seibold; David J Riley; Vivien M Hsu; John Varga; Dean E Schraufnagel; Arthur Theodore; Robert Simms; Robert Wise; Fredrick Wigley; Barbara White; Virginia Steen; Charles Read; Maureen Mayes; Ed Parsley; Kamal Mubarak; M Kari Connolly; Jeffrey Golden; Mitchell Olman; Barri Fessler; Naomi Rothfield; Mark Metersky; Philip J Clements Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2007-05
Authors: Brian J C Freeman; Nicholas A Steele; Tracey H Sach; James Hegarty; Rikke Soegaard Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2007-12-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Admassu N Lamu; Lars Björkman; Harald J Hamre; Terje Alræk; Frauke Musial; Bjarne Robberstad Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2021-04-17 Impact factor: 3.186