OBJECTIVES: To assess the responsiveness of the KQoL-26 and demonstrate minimal change for this instrument in two different samples of patients with suspected internal derangement of the knee. METHODS: Data were collected from two surveys conducted alongside a clinical trial: the arthroscopy sample and the general practitioner (GP) sample. The effect size (ES) was used to assess responsiveness. Anchor-based minimal change included minimal clinical important difference (MCID) and receiver operator characteristic curves; standardized error of measurement and minimal detectable change (MDC) was employed for distribution-based approaches. The KQoL-26 results are compared with those for the Lysholm Knee Score, EQ-5D and SF-36. RESULTS: The arthroscopy sample consisted of 121 participants and the GP sample of 218 participants at baseline. The largest ES was found for the KQoL-26 emotional functioning scale in both samples. The results were in favour of the condition-specific instrument. The MCID for KQoL-26 physical functioning, activities limitations and emotional functioning scales were 3, 15 and 18, respectively, in the arthroscopy sample; they were 11, 16 and 24 in the GP sample. The MDC 95 % was estimated as 18, 28 and 34, and 15, 24 and 30 in each sample, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The KQoL-26 emotional functional scale was the most responsive of all scales. It is recommended that an instrument such as the KQoL-26 that includes emotional functioning should be included rather than the Lysholm in future clinical trials of patients with suspected internal derangement of the knee.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the responsiveness of the KQoL-26 and demonstrate minimal change for this instrument in two different samples of patients with suspected internal derangement of the knee. METHODS: Data were collected from two surveys conducted alongside a clinical trial: the arthroscopy sample and the general practitioner (GP) sample. The effect size (ES) was used to assess responsiveness. Anchor-based minimal change included minimal clinical important difference (MCID) and receiver operator characteristic curves; standardized error of measurement and minimal detectable change (MDC) was employed for distribution-based approaches. The KQoL-26 results are compared with those for the Lysholm Knee Score, EQ-5D and SF-36. RESULTS: The arthroscopy sample consisted of 121 participants and the GP sample of 218 participants at baseline. The largest ES was found for the KQoL-26 emotional functioning scale in both samples. The results were in favour of the condition-specific instrument. The MCID for KQoL-26 physical functioning, activities limitations and emotional functioning scales were 3, 15 and 18, respectively, in the arthroscopy sample; they were 11, 16 and 24 in the GP sample. The MDC 95 % was estimated as 18, 28 and 34, and 15, 24 and 30 in each sample, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The KQoL-26 emotional functional scale was the most responsive of all scales. It is recommended that an instrument such as the KQoL-26 that includes emotional functioning should be included rather than the Lysholm in future clinical trials of patients with suspected internal derangement of the knee.
Authors: Jill Dawson; Helen Doll; Irene Boller; Ray Fitzpatrick; Christopher Little; Jonathan Rees; Andrew Carr Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2008-10-29 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Leo D Roorda; Joost Dekker; Sita M Bierma-Zeinstra; George Peat; Kelvin P Jordan; Peter Croft; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-11-18 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Karen K Briggs; Jack Lysholm; Yelverton Tegner; William G Rodkey; Mininder S Kocher; J Richard Steadman Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2009-03-04 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Stephen D Brealey; Christine Atwell; Stirling Bryan; Simon Coulton; Helen Cox; Ben Cross; Fiona Fylan; Andrew Garratt; Fiona J Gilbert; Maureen G C Gillan; Maggie Hendry; Kerenza Hood; Helen Houston; David King; Veronica Morton; Jo Orchard; Michael Robling; Ian T Russell; David Torgerson; Valerie Wadsworth; Clare Wilkinson Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2006-10-13 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Andrew M Garratt; Stephen Brealey; Michael Robling; Chris Atwell; Ian Russell; William Gillespie; David King Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2008-07-10 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Toan D Duong; Dung T Tran; Bich N T Do; Tai T Nguyen; Son M Le; Ha H Le Journal: Asia Pac J Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol Date: 2022-07-01