Daniel L Riddle1, Gregory J Golladay2, William A Jiranek2, Robert A Perera3. 1. Department of Physical Therapy, West Hospital, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, West Hospital, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia; Department of Rheumatology, McGuire Hall, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Instruments designed to predict the extent of pain and function following knee arthroplasty (KA) recovery has strong potential to guide patients and clinicians in shared decision making. Our purpose was to test the external validity of a recently developed prognostic instrument designed to estimate the probability of nonresponse following KA. METHODS: We used data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), a 9-year multisite National Institutes of Health study designed to examine the natural history of knee osteoarthritis in 4796 subjects. A total of 427 subjects underwent KA over the study period. Dowsey et al examined the prognostic role of obesity, general mental health, pain and function, and Kellgren and Lawrence knee osteoarthritis grades. Calibration of the prognostic model was determined using a calibration curve. The c-statistic was used to indicate discrimination of the model. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, 63 (19.3%) of 326 subjects in OAI were classified as nonresponders. The calibration curve generated from OAI data indicated poor calibration relative to the recently developed instrument. Discrimination as measured by the c-statistic was 0.76. CONCLUSION: The external validity of the prognostic instrument was partially supported. While discrimination of the model was very similar to the recently developed instrument, calibration was poor indicating poor agreement between actual vs predicted probabilities of nonresponse. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index and Kellgren and Lawrence grades show strong potential for use in future prognostic model development. Measurements of general mental health and obesity were not prognostic for nonresponse.
BACKGROUND: Instruments designed to predict the extent of pain and function following knee arthroplasty (KA) recovery has strong potential to guide patients and clinicians in shared decision making. Our purpose was to test the external validity of a recently developed prognostic instrument designed to estimate the probability of nonresponse following KA. METHODS: We used data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), a 9-year multisite National Institutes of Health study designed to examine the natural history of knee osteoarthritis in 4796 subjects. A total of 427 subjects underwent KA over the study period. Dowsey et al examined the prognostic role of obesity, general mental health, pain and function, and Kellgren and Lawrence knee osteoarthritis grades. Calibration of the prognostic model was determined using a calibration curve. The c-statistic was used to indicate discrimination of the model. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, 63 (19.3%) of 326 subjects in OAI were classified as nonresponders. The calibration curve generated from OAI data indicated poor calibration relative to the recently developed instrument. Discrimination as measured by the c-statistic was 0.76. CONCLUSION: The external validity of the prognostic instrument was partially supported. While discrimination of the model was very similar to the recently developed instrument, calibration was poor indicating poor agreement between actual vs predicted probabilities of nonresponse. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index and Kellgren and Lawrence grades show strong potential for use in future prognostic model development. Measurements of general mental health and obesity were not prognostic for nonresponse.
Authors: Manish Kothari; Ali Guermazi; Gabriele von Ingersleben; Yves Miaux; Martine Sieffert; Jon E Block; Randall Stevens; Charles G Peterfy Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2004-05-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jessica Maxwell; Jingbo Niu; Jasvinder A Singh; Michael C Nevitt; Laura Frey Law; David Felson Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2013-06-05 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Chad M Brummett; Andrew G Urquhart; Afton L Hassett; Alex Tsodikov; Brian R Hallstrom; Nathan I Wood; David A Williams; Daniel J Clauw Journal: Arthritis Rheumatol Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 10.995
Authors: David Beard; Andrew Price; Jonathan Cook; Ray Fitzpatrick; Andrew Carr; Marion Campbell; Helen Doll; Helen Campbell; Nigel Arden; Cushla Cooper; Loretta Davies; David Murray Journal: Trials Date: 2013-09-12 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Lieke Sweerts; Thomas J Hoogeboom; Thierry van Wessel; Philip J van der Wees; Sebastiaan A W van de Groes Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-08-24 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Jaap J Tolk; Rob P A Janssen; Tsjitske M Haanstra; Sita M A Bierma-Zeinstra; Max Reijman Journal: Trials Date: 2018-08-14 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Malou E M Te Molder; José M H Smolders; Petra J C Heesterbeek; Cornelia H M van den Ende Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2020-06-13 Impact factor: 2.362