Ozkan Kose1, Gokmen Deniz, Hakan Ozcan, Ferhat Guler. 1. Orthoapedics and Traumatology Department, Antalya Education and Research Hospital, Kultur mah. Durukent Sit. F Blok D:22, Antalya, Turkey, drozkankose@hotmail.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare two different modes of administration (telephone versus face to face) for Lysholm knee score (LKS) to test their multi-mode equivalence and reliability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two LKSs were obtained in 100 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction surgery. First LKS was completed through telephone interview, and second LKS, which was at least 2 weeks later, was completed face-to-face interview at the hospital. To analyze the test-retest reliability, the relative level of agreement between the two modes of administration for LKS was calculated using interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) in 95 % confidence interval. RESULTS: The mean LKS was 93.01 ± 9.12 (range 59-100) at telephone interview and 93.56 ± 7.93 (range 59-100) at face-to-face interview (p = 0.130). Both the total point and the each item's point were statistically similar (p < 0.05 for each item). The total score was same in 66 (66 %) subjects. The mean difference between two scoring was only 1.83 ± 3.14 points (range 0-15). However, eight (8 %) patients were assigned to different grading groups (excellent, good, fair, and poor). The overall LKS and the each item of the LKS had acceptable test-retest reliability [ICC = 0.954 (95 % CI 0.931-0.969)]. CONCLUSIONS: LKS can be reliably completed through telephone interview, which would provide accurate data similar to face-to-face interview. Researchers can design studies using telephone interview as a mode of administration for LKS or use mix-mode designs.
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare two different modes of administration (telephone versus face to face) for Lysholm knee score (LKS) to test their multi-mode equivalence and reliability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two LKSs were obtained in 100 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction surgery. First LKS was completed through telephone interview, and second LKS, which was at least 2 weeks later, was completed face-to-face interview at the hospital. To analyze the test-retest reliability, the relative level of agreement between the two modes of administration for LKS was calculated using interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) in 95 % confidence interval. RESULTS: The mean LKS was 93.01 ± 9.12 (range 59-100) at telephone interview and 93.56 ± 7.93 (range 59-100) at face-to-face interview (p = 0.130). Both the total point and the each item's point were statistically similar (p < 0.05 for each item). The total score was same in 66 (66 %) subjects. The mean difference between two scoring was only 1.83 ± 3.14 points (range 0-15). However, eight (8 %) patients were assigned to different grading groups (excellent, good, fair, and poor). The overall LKS and the each item of the LKS had acceptable test-retest reliability [ICC = 0.954 (95 % CI 0.931-0.969)]. CONCLUSIONS: LKS can be reliably completed through telephone interview, which would provide accurate data similar to face-to-face interview. Researchers can design studies using telephone interview as a mode of administration for LKS or use mix-mode designs.
Authors: Gian Andrea Lucidi; Piero Agostinone; Alberto Grassi; Stefano Di Paolo; Giacomo Dal Fabbro; Tommaso Bonanzinga; Stefano Zaffagnini Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2022-01-07
Authors: Melanie R Lovell; Jane L Phillips; Tim Luckett; Lawrence Lam; Frances M Boyle; Patricia M Davidson; Seong L Cheah; Nicola McCaffrey; David C Currow; Tim Shaw; Annmarie Hosie; Bogda Koczwara; Stephen Clarke; Jessica Lee; Martin R Stockler; Caitlin Sheehan; Odette Spruijt; Katherine Allsopp; Alexandra Clinch; Katherine Clark; Alison Read; Meera Agar Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-02-01
Authors: Gian Andrea Lucidi; Alberto Grassi; Piero Agostinone; Stefano Di Paolo; Giacomo Dal Fabbro; Chiara D'Alberton; Nicola Pizza; Stefano Zaffagnini Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2022-08-04 Impact factor: 7.010