Marco Monticone1, Simona Ferrante, Stefano Salvaderi, Lorenzo Motta, Cesare Cerri. 1. From the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Unit, Scientific Institute of Lissone, Salvatore Maugeri Foundation, Institute of Care and Research (IRCCS) Lissone, Milano, Italy (MM, SF, SS); Neuroengineering and Medical Robotics Laboratory, Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione e Bioingegneria, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy (SF); School of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, "Bicocca" University of Milan, Milano, Italy (LM, CC).
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the responsiveness and minimal important changes for the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in subjects undergoing rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty. DESIGN: At the beginning and end of a rehabilitation program, 148 patients completed the KOOS. A global perception of change scale was also completed at the end of the program and collapsed to produce a dichotomous outcome (improved vs. stable). Responsiveness was assessed on the KOOS subscales and calculated by distribution methods (effect size; standardized response mean). The minimal important changes of the KOOS subscales were assessed using anchor-based methods (receiver operating characteristic curves) to compute the best cutoff levels between the improved and stable subjects. RESULTS: The effect sizes ranged from 0.83 to 1.35, and the standardized response means ranged from 0.76 to 1.22. The receiver operating characteristic analyses revealed an area under the curve of 0.89, 0.88, 0.94, 0.93, and 0.85 for the Pain, Symptoms, Activities of Daily Living, Sport/Recreation, and Quality of Life subscales, respectively, showing discriminative capacities; the minimal important changes were 16.7 for Pain (sensitivity: 83%; specificity: 82%), 10.7 for Symptoms (80%; 80%), 18.4 for Activities of Daily Living (82%; 82%), 12.5 for Sport/Recreation (96%; 78%), and 15.6 for Quality of Life (88%; 67%). CONCLUSIONS: The KOOS was sensitive in detecting clinical changes. The authors recommend taking the minimal important changes provided into account when assessing patient improvement or planning studies in this clinical context.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the responsiveness and minimal important changes for the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in subjects undergoing rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty. DESIGN: At the beginning and end of a rehabilitation program, 148 patients completed the KOOS. A global perception of change scale was also completed at the end of the program and collapsed to produce a dichotomous outcome (improved vs. stable). Responsiveness was assessed on the KOOS subscales and calculated by distribution methods (effect size; standardized response mean). The minimal important changes of the KOOS subscales were assessed using anchor-based methods (receiver operating characteristic curves) to compute the best cutoff levels between the improved and stable subjects. RESULTS: The effect sizes ranged from 0.83 to 1.35, and the standardized response means ranged from 0.76 to 1.22. The receiver operating characteristic analyses revealed an area under the curve of 0.89, 0.88, 0.94, 0.93, and 0.85 for the Pain, Symptoms, Activities of Daily Living, Sport/Recreation, and Quality of Life subscales, respectively, showing discriminative capacities; the minimal important changes were 16.7 for Pain (sensitivity: 83%; specificity: 82%), 10.7 for Symptoms (80%; 80%), 18.4 for Activities of Daily Living (82%; 82%), 12.5 for Sport/Recreation (96%; 78%), and 15.6 for Quality of Life (88%; 67%). CONCLUSIONS: The KOOS was sensitive in detecting clinical changes. The authors recommend taking the minimal important changes provided into account when assessing patient improvement or planning studies in this clinical context.
Authors: Stephen Lyman; Yuo-Yu Lee; Alexander S McLawhorn; Wasif Islam; Catherine H MacLean Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Hana Marmura; Andrew Firth; Lachlan Batty; Dianne M Bryant; Alan M J Getgood Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 4.114
Authors: Daniel C Santana; Alison K Klika; Yuxuan Jin; Ahmed K Emara; Nicolas S Piuzzi Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Tahira Devji; Gordon H Guyatt; Lyubov Lytvyn; Romina Brignardello-Petersen; Farid Foroutan; Behnam Sadeghirad; Rachelle Buchbinder; Rudolf W Poolman; Ian A Harris; Alonso Carrasco-Labra; Reed A C Siemieniuk; Per O Vandvik Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-05-11 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Fernando Dias Correia; André Nogueira; Ivo Magalhães; Joana Guimarães; Maria Moreira; Isabel Barradas; Maria Molinos; Laetitia Teixeira; José Tulha; Rosmaninho Seabra; Jorge Lains; Virgílio Bento Journal: JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol Date: 2019-02-28
Authors: Chien-Chih Huang; Wen-Shiang Chen; Mei-Wun Tsai; Wendy Tzyy-Jiuan Wang Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2017-12-06 Impact factor: 3.186