N J Collins1, C A C Prinsen2, R Christensen3, E M Bartels4, C B Terwee5, E M Roos6. 1. School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia; Department of Mechanical Engineering, Melbourne School of Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. Electronic address: n.collins1@uq.edu.au. 2. VU University Medical Center, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, The Netherlands. Electronic address: c.prinsen@vumc.nl. 3. Musculoskeletal Statistics Unit, The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: robin.christensen@regionh.dk. 4. The Biochemistry and Physiology Laboratory, The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: Else.Marie.Bartels@regionh.dk. 5. VU University Medical Center, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, The Netherlands. Electronic address: cb.terwee@vumc.nl. 6. Research Unit for Musculoskeletal Function and Physiotherapy, Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, DK-5230 Odense M, Denmark. Electronic address: eroos@health.sdu.dk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize evidence regarding measurement properties of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). DESIGN: A comprehensive literature search identified 37 eligible papers evaluating KOOS measurement properties in participants with knee injuries and/or osteoarthritis (OA). Methodological quality was evaluated using the COSMIN checklist. Where possible, meta-analysis of extracted data was conducted for all studies and stratified by age and knee condition; otherwise narrative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: KOOS has adequate internal consistency, test-retest reliability and construct validity in young and old adults with knee injuries and/or OA. The ADL subscale has better content validity for older patients and Sport/Rec for younger patients with knee injuries, while the Pain subscale is more relevant for painful knee conditions. The five-factor structure of the original KOOS is unclear. There is some evidence that the KOOS subscales demonstrate sufficient unidimensionality, but this requires confirmation. Although measurement error requires further evaluation, the minimal detectable change for KOOS subscales ranges from 14.3 to 19.6 for younger individuals, and ≥20 for older individuals. Evidence of responsiveness comes from larger effect sizes following surgical (especially total knee replacement) than non-surgical interventions. CONCLUSIONS: KOOS demonstrates adequate content validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity and responsiveness for age- and condition-relevant subscales. Structural validity, cross-cultural validity and measurement error require further evaluation, as well as construct validity of KOOS Physical function Short form. Suggested order of subscales for different knee conditions can be applied in hierarchical testing of endpoints in clinical trials. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42011001603).
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize evidence regarding measurement properties of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). DESIGN: A comprehensive literature search identified 37 eligible papers evaluating KOOS measurement properties in participants with knee injuries and/or osteoarthritis (OA). Methodological quality was evaluated using the COSMIN checklist. Where possible, meta-analysis of extracted data was conducted for all studies and stratified by age and knee condition; otherwise narrative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: KOOS has adequate internal consistency, test-retest reliability and construct validity in young and old adults with knee injuries and/or OA. The ADL subscale has better content validity for older patients and Sport/Rec for younger patients with knee injuries, while the Pain subscale is more relevant for painful knee conditions. The five-factor structure of the original KOOS is unclear. There is some evidence that the KOOS subscales demonstrate sufficient unidimensionality, but this requires confirmation. Although measurement error requires further evaluation, the minimal detectable change for KOOS subscales ranges from 14.3 to 19.6 for younger individuals, and ≥20 for older individuals. Evidence of responsiveness comes from larger effect sizes following surgical (especially total knee replacement) than non-surgical interventions. CONCLUSIONS: KOOS demonstrates adequate content validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity and responsiveness for age- and condition-relevant subscales. Structural validity, cross-cultural validity and measurement error require further evaluation, as well as construct validity of KOOS Physical function Short form. Suggested order of subscales for different knee conditions can be applied in hierarchical testing of endpoints in clinical trials. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42011001603).
Authors: J Kristopher Ware; Brett D Owens; Matthew R Akelman; Naga Padmini Karamchedu; Paul D Fadale; Michael J Hulstyn; Robert M Shalvoy; Gary J Badger; Braden C Fleming Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Saud A Alfadhel; Vishal Vennu; Ali H Alnahdi; Mohammed T Omar; Saeed H Alasmari; Zahra AlJafri; Saad M Bindawas Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Brooke E Patterson; Adam G Culvenor; Christian J Barton; Ali Guermazi; Joshua J Stefanik; Kay M Crossley Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Annika Prien; Sana Boudabous; Astrid Junge; Evert Verhagen; Bénédicte M A Delattre; Philippe M Tscholl Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2019-06-17 Impact factor: 4.342