Literature DB >> 23463019

Comparison of the responsiveness of the SF-36, the Oxford Knee Score, and the Knee Society Clinical Rating System in patients undergoing total knee replacement.

Yu Ko1, Ngai-Nung Lo, Seng-Jin Yeo, Kuang-Ying Yang, William Yeo, Hwei-Chi Chong, Julian Thumboo.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the responsiveness of the Knee Society (KS) Clinical Rating System, the general health status measure Short Form 36 (SF-36), and both the raw and Rasch-based scores of the condition-specific Oxford Knee Score (OKS) in patients undergoing total knee replacement (TKR)
METHODS: Data were prospectively collected as part of routine care from adult patients who underwent TKR between 2001 and 2006. OKS data fit the Rasch partial credit model after removing items regarding limping and kneeling. Responsiveness was assessed using effect size (ES), standardised response mean (SRM), and relative validity (RV).
RESULTS: Among 702 patients with complete data at baseline and two follow-ups, the pain subscale of the KS (KS-P), raw-OKS, and Rasch-OKS consistently had higher levels of responsiveness than all eight SF-36 and the other KS subscales. At 6-month follow-up, Rasch-OKS had the largest ES and KS-P had the largest SRM (2.7 and 2.0, respectively). When compared to raw-OKS, the RVs of KS-P, Rasch-OKS, SF-36 bodily pain, and SF-36 physical functioning were 1.1, 0.66, 0.49, and 0.36, respectively. A similar ordering of responsiveness was observed at 24-month follow-up.
CONCLUSION: The OKS and KS-P are more responsive than most SF-36 subscales in TKR patients. Raw-OKS and Rasch-OKS have comparable responsiveness. Different responsiveness indices may give different results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23463019     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-013-0376-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  14 in total

1.  A community-based study of scaling assumptions and construct validity of the English (UK) and Chinese (HK) SF-36 in Singapore.

Authors:  J Thumboo; K Y Fong; D Machin; S P Chan; K H Leon; P H Feng; S T Thio; M L Boe
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after hip joint replacement.

Authors:  J M Quintana; A Escobar; A Bilbao; I Arostegui; I Lafuente; I Vidaurreta
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2005-09-09       Impact factor: 6.576

3.  The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.

Authors:  J E Ware; C D Sherbourne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system.

Authors:  J N Insall; L D Dorr; R D Scott; W N Scott
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Validity and responsiveness of the Knee Society Clinical Rating System in comparison with the SF-36 and WOMAC.

Authors:  E A Lingard; J N Katz; R J Wright; E A Wright; C B Sledge
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of Singapore English and Chinese Versions of the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) in knee osteoarthritis patients undergoing total knee replacement.

Authors:  F Xie; S-C Li; N-N Lo; S-J Yeo; K-Y Yang; W Yeo; H-C Chong; K-Y Fong; J Thumboo
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2007-04-03       Impact factor: 6.576

7.  A comparison of outcomes in osteoarthritis patients undergoing total hip and knee replacement surgery.

Authors:  C J Bachmeier; L M March; M J Cross; H M Lapsley; K L Tribe; B G Courtenay; P M Brooks
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 6.576

8.  Patient outcomes following tricompartmental total knee replacement. A meta-analysis.

Authors:  C M Callahan; B G Drake; D A Heck; R S Dittus
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-05-04       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Rasch analysis for outcomes measures: some methodological considerations.

Authors:  W C Chang; C Chan
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 3.966

Review 10.  Patient-assessed health instruments for the knee: a structured review.

Authors:  A M Garratt; S Brealey; W J Gillespie
Journal:  Rheumatology (Oxford)       Date:  2004-08-17       Impact factor: 7.580

View more
  14 in total

1.  Effect of Celecoxib on Surgical Site Inflammation after Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Controlled Study.

Authors:  Xun Xu; Weilin Sang; Yu Liu; Libo Zhu; Haiming Lu; Jinzhong Ma
Journal:  Med Princ Pract       Date:  2018-09-13       Impact factor: 1.927

2.  Comparison of outcome measures from different pathways following total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Hiok Yang Chan; Rehena Sultana; Seng Jin Yeo; Shi-Lu Chia; Hee Nee Pang; Ngai Nung Lo
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2018-01-26       Impact factor: 1.858

3.  Joint awareness in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee evaluated with the 'Forgotten Joint' Score before and after joint replacement.

Authors:  E Thienpont; A Vanden Berghe; P E Schwab; J P Forthomme; O Cornu
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-01-06       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty: Which type of artificial joint do patients forget?

Authors:  Hendrik A Zuiderbaan; Jelle P van der List; Saker Khamaisy; Danyal H Nawabi; Ran Thein; C Ishmael; Sophia Paul; Andrew D Pearle
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-11-21       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Recovery in knee range of motion reaches a plateau by 12 months after total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Zhihong Zhou; Khye Soon Andy Yew; Earnest Arul; Pak-Lin Chin; Keng Jin Darren Tay; Ngai-Nung Lo; Shi-Lu Chia; Seng Jin Yeo
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-09-02       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  DEMQOL and DEMQOL-Proxy: a Rasch analysis.

Authors:  A A Jolijn Hendriks; Sarah C Smith; Theopisti Chrysanthaki; Stefan J Cano; Nick Black
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2017-08-22       Impact factor: 3.186

7.  Cartilage Surgery in Overweight Patients: Clinical and MRI Results after the Autologous Matrix-Induced Chondrogenesis Procedure.

Authors:  Matthias Lahner; Christopher Ull; Marco Hagen; Christoph von Schulze Pellengahr; Kiriakos Daniilidis; Lars Victor von Engelhardt; Nina Lahner; Wolfram Teske
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2018-05-08       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 8.  Patient-reported outcome measures after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Authors:  P N Ramkumar; J D Harris; P C Noble
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 5.853

9.  Comparative responsiveness of outcome measures for total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  K Giesinger; D F Hamilton; B Jost; B Holzner; J M Giesinger
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2013-11-18       Impact factor: 6.576

10.  Insight Into the Effect of Hospital-Based Prehabilitation on Postoperative Outcomes in Patients With Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Comparative Study.

Authors:  Rui Li; Baohong Hu; Zongchao Liu; Shuai Xu; Jianping Li; Siliang Ma; Zhe Wang; Jingxia Liu
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2021-07-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.