Literature DB >> 30418278

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

Mahmut Enes Kayaalp1, Thomas Keller, Wolfgang Fitz, Giles R Scuderi, Roland Becker.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In 2011 the Knee Society Score (KSS) was revised to include patient expectations, satisfaction, and physical activities as patient-reported outcomes. Since the new KSS has become a widely used method to evaluate patient status after TKA, we sought to translate and validate it for German-speaking populations. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: After translation of the new KSS into German using established guidelines, we sought to test the new German version for (1) validity; (2) responsiveness; and (3) reliability.
METHODS: The new KSS form was translated and adapted according to the available guidelines. The final version was used to validate the German version of the new KSS (GNKSS) in 133 patients undergoing TKA, of which 100 patients were included in the study as per inclusion criteria. Patients completed the GNKSS form along with the German WOMAC and the German SF-36 scores preoperatively and at the 2-year postoperative followup. Construct validity was tested by comparing domain scores of the GNKSS with domain scores of the German WOMAC and the SF-36. Responsiveness was evaluated by comparing pre- and postoperative scores in all questionnaires in all patients using standardized response means. To evaluate reliability, every second patient (n = 50) in the whole group was asked to complete the GNKSS form a second time 1 week after their 2-year followup; 39 patients responded. This sample group was considered representative after testing the difference among age, sex, body mass index, operation side, preoperative or postoperative GNKSS, and WOMAC scores with the original group. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to assess reliability and Cronbach's α was an indicator of internal consistency of each domain score.
RESULTS: Construct validity was excellent pre- and postoperatively between the GNKSS and the WOMAC for domains including symptoms, satisfaction, total functional score, and total score and activity subdomains, except the expectation domain and advanced and discretionary subdomains of the GNKSS and the stiffness domain of WOMAC. The expectation domain showed either no significant correlation or only weak correlations with the domains of WOMAC pre- as well as postoperatively (r ranging between -0.19 and -0.34). Correlation of the function section of the GNKSS as well as the physical function and role-physical domains of the SF-36 pre- and postoperatively were moderate to strong, respectively, with statistically significant (p < 0.001) r values of 0.49 and 0.48 preoperatively and 0.73 and 0.65 postoperatively. Correlation of the symptom section of the GNKSS and bodily pain domain of the SF-36 was also strong pre- and postoperatively. Regarding responsiveness, all domains of the GNKSS showed large changes except the expectation domain. The symptom and functional sections of the GNKSS showed higher responsiveness than the corresponding pain and function domains of the WOMAC and bodily pain and physical function domains of the SF-36. Also, the total score changes were larger for the GNKSS compared with the WOMAC. No floor or ceiling effect was observed. Reliability was excellent with ICCs of 0.83 to 0.97 as an indicator of test-retest reliability and Cronbach's α values of 0.78 to 0.85 preoperatively and 0.92 to 0.94 postoperatively as an indicator of internal consistency for all domains and subdomains.
CONCLUSIONS: The GNKSS is a valid, responsive, reliable, and consistent outcome measurement tool that may be used to evaluate the outcome of TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, diagnostic study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30418278      PMCID: PMC6370076          DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000555

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


  29 in total

1.  Do SF-36 summary component scores accurately summarize subscale scores?

Authors:  C Taft; J Karlsson; M Sullivan
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 2.  Scoring the SF-36 in Orthopaedics: A Brief Guide.

Authors:  Nicholas C Laucis; Ron D Hays; Timothy Bhattacharyya
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2015-10-07       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires.

Authors:  Caroline B Terwee; Sandra D M Bot; Michael R de Boer; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Dirk L Knol; Joost Dekker; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2006-08-24       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  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

5.  The German Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) is reliable, valid and responsive in patients undergoing hip or knee replacement.

Authors:  Florian D Naal; Franco M Impellizzeri; Sebastian Torka; Vanessa Wellauer; Michael Leunig; Rüdiger von Eisenhart-Rothe
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-08-10       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Measurement properties of the WOMAC LK 3.1 pain scale.

Authors:  P W Stratford; D M Kennedy; L J Woodhouse; G F Spadoni
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2006-10-12       Impact factor: 6.576

7.  Severity and functional disability of patients with occupational contact dermatitis: validation of the German version of the Occupational Contact Dermatitis Disease Severity Index.

Authors:  Robert F Ofenloch; Thomas L Diepgen; Ana Popielnicki; Elke Weisshaar; Sonja Molin; Andrea Bauer; Vera Mahler; Peter Elsner; Jochen Schmitt; Christian Apfelbacher
Journal:  Contact Dermatitis       Date:  2014-11-19       Impact factor: 6.600

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

Authors:  Rajesh N Maniar; Parul R Maniar; Debashish Chanda; Dnyaneshwar Gajbhare; Toral Chouhan
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  The validity and reliability of the occupational contact dermatitis disease severity index.

Authors:  Nathan Curr; Shyamali Dharmage; Tessa Keegel; Adriene Lee; Helen Saunders; Rosemary Nixon
Journal:  Contact Dermatitis       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 6.600

Review 10.  SF-36 total score as a single measure of health-related quality of life: Scoping review.

Authors:  Liliane Lins; Fernando Martins Carvalho
Journal:  SAGE Open Med       Date:  2016-10-04
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.  Comment on "Psychometrical properties of the Turkish translation of the New Knee Society Scoring System".

Authors:  Mahmut Enes Kayaalp
Journal:  Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 1.511

3.  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

4.  Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study protocol.

Authors:  Nicole Vogel; Thomas Rychen; Raphael Kaelin; Markus P Arnold
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-12-07       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Correction of severe valgus osteoarthritis by total knee arthroplasty is associated with increased postoperative ankle symptoms.

Authors:  Frank Graef; Hagen Hommel; Roman Falk; Serafeim Tsitsilonis; Robert Karl Zahn; Carsten Perka
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2020-08-24       Impact factor: 4.114

6.  Factors contributing to 1-year dissatisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: a nomogram prediction model.

Authors:  Mieralimu Muertizha; XinTian Cai; Baochao Ji; Abudousaimi Aimaiti; Li Cao
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2022-07-28       Impact factor: 2.677

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.