Literature DB >> 28378275

What is the Responsiveness and Respondent Burden of the New Knee Society Score?

Rajesh N Maniar1, Parul R Maniar2, Debashish Chanda3, Dnyaneshwar Gajbhare4, Toral Chouhan5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although the new Knee Society score (NKSS) has been validated by a task force, a longitudinal study of the same cohort of patients to evaluate the score's responsiveness and respondent burden has not been reported, to our knowledge. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We analyzed the NKSS for (1) responsiveness; (2) respondent burden; and (3) convergent validity in 148 patients studied longitudinally during more than 1 year.
METHODS: During an 8-month period, 165 patients underwent TKA by the same surgeon at our institution, of whom 148 (90%) completed this study; the others were excluded because of distance to travel or loss to followup at the specified time. The NKSS, WOMAC, and SF-12 were completed by each patient 1 day before surgery and at 3 and 12 months postoperatively. At the same times, the original KSS (OKSS) which is designed as an observer's assessment, was completed by the same orthopaedic fellow for all patients. Responsiveness of the NKSS was assessed by determining effect size, standardized response mean (SRM), and ceiling and floor effects. Respondent burden was assessed through time to completion recorded in minutes and ease of completion which was measured objectively on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 by the patients. Convergent validity was assessed by correlating the NKSS with the WOMAC, SF-12, and OKSS (current, widely used scales) by Pearson's correlation coefficient.
RESULTS: Effect size was largest (2.83 and 3.38) and SRM was highest (2.29 and 2.68) for the NKSS at 3 and 12 months respectively, indicating the NKSS to be the most-responsive score followed by the OKSS, WOMAC, and SF-12. The NKSS exhibited no ceiling and floor effects. The NKSS took a longer time to complete (5.49 ± 3.56 minutes) compared with the WOMAC (4.64 ± 3.19 minutes) and SF-12 (4.35 ± 3.27 minutes). The mean difference in time taken for the NKSS versus the WOMAC was 0.85 minutes (95% CI, 0.54-1.17 minutes; p < 0.001) and the mean difference for the NKSS versus the SF-12 was 1.14 minutes (95% CI, 0.76-1.15 minutes; p < 0.001). Its ease of completion generally was comparable to that of the WOMAC and SF-12. Convergent validity showed a strong correlation (r > 0.6; p < 0.001) of the NKSS with the WOMAC at all times and moderate to strong correlation (r = 0.4-0.6; p < 0.001) with the SF-12 and OKSS at the first two assessments, which became strong (r > 0.6; p < 0.001) at 12 months.
CONCLUSIONS: The NKSS exhibited greater responsiveness than the WOMAC, SF-12, and OKSS scales and showed no ceiling effect, indicating adequate potential for recording future improvement. The NKSS also showed reliable convergent validity when correlated with these other scores. However, it posed a greater respondent burden in terms of time to completion. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: As independent nondevelopers of the NKSS, we found it to be a responsive tool for assessment of TKA outcomes. We have confirmed that the NKSS can be used interchangeably for this purpose with the WOMAC scale and that it correlates positively with other established scales of the SF-12 and OKSS. Further study of the short-form version will establish whether it also can be used effectively while reducing the respondent burden.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28378275      PMCID: PMC5539022          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-017-5338-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  17 in total

1.  Development of a new Knee Society scoring system.

Authors:  Philip C Noble; Giles R Scuderi; Adam C Brekke; Alla Sikorskii; James B Benjamin; Jess H Lonner; Priya Chadha; Daniel A Daylamani; W Norman Scott; Robert B Bourne
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Translation and validation of the Dutch new Knee Society Scoring System ©.

Authors:  Catherine Van Der Straeten; Erik Witvrouw; Tine Willems; Johan Bellemans; Jan Victor
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-07-09       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity.

Authors:  J Ware; M Kosinski; S D Keller
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Japanese version of the new Knee Society Scoring System for osteoarthritic knee with total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Yosuke Hamamoto; Hiromu Ito; Moritoshi Furu; Masahiro Ishikawa; Masayuki Azukizawa; Shinichi Kuriyama; Shinichiro Nakamura; Shuichi Matsuda
Journal:  J Orthop Sci       Date:  2015-05-16       Impact factor: 1.601

5.  Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system.

Authors:  J N Insall; L D Dorr; R D Scott; W N Scott
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.

Authors:  N Bellamy; W W Buchanan; C H Goldsmith; J Campbell; L W Stitt
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  1988-12       Impact factor: 4.666

7.  Measuring improvement following total hip and knee arthroplasty using patient-based measures of outcome.

Authors:  Robert G Marx; Edward C Jones; Nawal C Atwan; Robert F Closkey; Eduardo A Salvati; Thomas P Sculco
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Validity and responsiveness of the Knee Society Clinical Rating System in comparison with the SF-36 and WOMAC.

Authors:  E A Lingard; J N Katz; R J Wright; E A Wright; C B Sledge
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status.

Authors:  L E Kazis; J J Anderson; R F Meenan
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) - validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement.

Authors:  Ewa M Roos; Sören Toksvig-Larsen
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2003-05-25       Impact factor: 3.186

View more
  6 in total

1.  CORR Insights®: Translation and Validation of the German New Knee Society Scoring System.

Authors:  Tae Kyun Kim
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Translation and Validation of the German New Knee Society Scoring System.

Authors:  Mahmut Enes Kayaalp; Thomas Keller; Wolfgang Fitz; Giles R Scuderi; Roland Becker
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Forgotten Joint Score Post Total Knee Arthroplasty and Its Correlation with the New Knee Society Score.

Authors:  Rajesh N Maniar; Ankur Dhiman; Parul R Maniar; Pranav Bindal; Anil Arekar
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2021-07-17       Impact factor: 1.033

4.  Performance of PROMIS Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Depression Computer Adaptive Tests Instruments in Patients Undergoing Meniscal Surgery.

Authors:  Yining Lu; Alexander Beletsky; Benedict U Nwachukwu; Bhavik H Patel; Kelechi R Okoroha; Nikhil Verma; Brian Cole; Brian Forsythe
Journal:  Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil       Date:  2020-10-24

5.  Patient-reported outcome measures used in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Yiou Wang; Meihua Yin; Shibai Zhu; Xi Chen; Hongru Zhou; Wenwei Qian
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 5.853

6.  Comparison of Patellofemoral Outcomes between Attune and PFC Sigma Designs: A Prospective Matched-Pair Analysis.

Authors:  Rajesh Navin Maniar; Nishit Bhatnagar; Rohan Bidwai; Ankur Dhiman; Debashish Chanda; Nishant Sanghavi
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2021-03-16
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.