Literature DB >> 24253376

The minimal clinically important difference in the Oxford knee score and Short Form 12 score after total knee arthroplasty.

N D Clement1, D MacDonald, A H R W Simpson.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to identify the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the Oxford knee score (OKS) and Short Form (SF-) 12 score after total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
METHODS: Prospective pre-operative and 1 year post-operative OKS and SF-12 scores for 505 patients undergoing a primary TKA for osteoarthritis were collected during a one-year period. Patient satisfaction with their (1) patient relief and (2) functional outcome was used as the anchor questions. Their response to each question was recorded using a 5-point Likert scale: excellent, very well, well, fair, and poor. Simple linear regression was used to calculate the MCID for improvement in the OKS and physical component of the SF-12 score according to the level of patient satisfaction with their pain relief and function.
RESULTS: The OKS improved by 15.5 (95 % CI 14.7-16.4) points and the SF-12 physical component score improved by 10.1 (95 % CI 9.1-11.2) points for the study cohort. The level of patient satisfaction with their pain relief and function correlated with the improvement in the OKS (r = 0.56; p < 0.001, and r = 0.56; p < 0.001) and the physical component of the SF-12 score (r = 0.51; p < 0.001, and r = 0.60; p < 0.001), respectively. The MCID for the OKS was 5.0 (95 % CI 4.4-5.5) and 4.3 (95 % CI 3.8-4.8) points and for the physical component of the SF-12, it was 4.5 (95 % CI 3.9-5.2) and 4.8 (95 % CI 4.2-5.4) points for pain relief and function, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The MCID identified for the OKS and SF-12 physical component score after TKA is the best available estimate and can be used to power studies and ensure that a statistical difference is also recognised by a patient.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24253376     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-013-2776-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc        ISSN: 0942-2056            Impact factor:   4.342


  29 in total

1.  The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores.

Authors:  D W Murray; R Fitzpatrick; K Rogers; H Pandit; D J Beard; A J Carr; J Dawson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2007-08

Review 2.  A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods.

Authors:  Madeleine T King
Journal:  Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 2.217

3.  Patient expectations of arthroplasty of the hip and knee.

Authors:  C E H Scott; K E Bugler; N D Clement; D MacDonald; C R Howie; L C Biant
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2012-07

4.  Predicting dissatisfaction following total knee replacement: a prospective study of 1217 patients.

Authors:  C E H Scott; C R Howie; D MacDonald; L C Biant
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2010-09

5.  The effect of surgical factors on early patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) following total knee replacement.

Authors:  P N Baker; D J Deehan; D Lees; S Jameson; P J Avery; P J Gregg; M R Reed
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2012-08

6.  Predicting patient satisfaction using the Oxford knee score: where do we draw the line?

Authors:  Nicholas D Clement; Deborah Macdonald; Richard Burnett
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2013-03-24       Impact factor: 3.067

7.  Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty is affected by their general physical well-being.

Authors:  N D Clement; R Burnett
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-05-14       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 8.  Measuring health-related quality of life.

Authors:  G H Guyatt; D H Feeny; D L Patrick
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1993-04-15       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article.

Authors:  Scott L Parker; Saniya S Godil; David N Shau; Stephen K Mendenhall; Matthew J McGirt
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2012-11-23

10.  Socioeconomic status affects the Oxford knee score and short-form 12 score following total knee replacement.

Authors:  N D Clement; P J Jenkins; D MacDonald; Y X Nie; J T Patton; S J Breusch; C R Howie; L C Biant
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 5.082

View more
  86 in total

1.  Does diabetes affect functional outcomes after shoulder arthroplasty?

Authors:  Sana'a A Alsubheen; Joy C MacDermid; Tom J Overend; Kenneth J Faber
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2019-03-10

2.  Minimal clinically important differences and substantial clinical benefits for Knee Society Scores.

Authors:  Alejandro Lizaur-Utrilla; Santiago Gonzalez-Parreño; Daniel Martinez-Mendez; Francisco A Miralles-Muñoz; Fernando A Lopez-Prats
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2019-05-20       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  High correlation of the Oxford Knee Score with postoperative pain, but not with performance-based functioning.

Authors:  Ruud P van Hove; Richard M Brohet; Barend J van Royen; Peter A Nolte
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-03-29       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Femoral cortical thickness influences the pattern of proximal femoral periprosthetic fractures with a cemented stem.

Authors:  Jarrad Stevens; Nicholas Clement; Michael Nasserallah; Michael Millar; Sam Joseph
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2018-02-08

5.  Lateral osteophytes do not represent a contraindication to medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 15-year follow-up.

Authors:  Thomas W Hamilton; Rajan Choudhary; Cathy Jenkins; Stephen J Mellon; Christopher A F Dodd; David W Murray; Hemant G Pandit
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-09-08       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Comparison of outcomes after UKA in patients with and without chondrocalcinosis: a matched cohort study.

Authors:  V Kumar; H G Pandit; A D Liddle; W Borror; C Jenkins; S J Mellon; T W Hamilton; N Athanasou; C A F Dodd; D W Murray
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-03-19       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  The minimal clinically important difference for Knee Society Clinical Rating System after total knee arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Wu Chean Lee; Yu Heng Kwan; Hwei Chi Chong; Seng Jin Yeo
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-06-21       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 8.  [Objectifying results in total knee arthroplasty: Is "patient satisfaction" adequate].

Authors:  C Kopkow; J Schmitt; E Haase; T Lange; K-P Günther; J Lützner
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 1.087

9.  Comparing the validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L to the Oxford hip and knee scores and SF-12 in osteoarthritis patients 1 year following total joint replacement.

Authors:  Barbara L Conner-Spady; Deborah A Marshall; Eric Bohm; Michael J Dunbar; Tom W Noseworthy
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2018-02-08       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Single-stage total knee arthroplasty and osteotomy as treatment of secondary osteoarthritis with severe coronal deviation of joint surface due to extra-articular deformity.

Authors:  Ewout S Veltman; Remco J A van Wensen; Koen C Defoort; Gijs G van Hellemondt; Ate B Wymenga
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-12-12       Impact factor: 4.342

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.