| Literature DB >> 31435230 |
Khalid A Alahmari1, Paul S Silvian1, Ravi S Reddy1, Irshad Ahmad1, Venkata N Kakaraparthi1, Mohammad M Alam1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study explores the role of knee circumference, body mass index (BMI), and range of motion (ROM) in predicting knee osteoarthritis (KOA). The objective is to elucidate the mediating role of BMI in influencing the relationship between age, knee circumference and pain in knee osteoarthritis, as measured with the help of the knee outcome survey (KOS) questionnaire.Entities:
Keywords: Body mass index (BMI); Clinical rehabilitation; Knee circumference; Knee osteoarthritis (KOA); Range of motion (ROM)
Year: 2017 PMID: 31435230 PMCID: PMC6695076 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtumed.2016.11.010
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Taibah Univ Med Sci ISSN: 1658-3612
Figure 1The study model.
Goodness of fit summary: SPSS and LISREL.
| Cronbach's alpha | Chi square (p value) | GFI | RMSEA | NNFI | CFI | AGFI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.953 | 78.66 (0.017*) | 0.98 | 0.03 | 0.93 | 0.96 | 0.98 |
GFI: Goodness of Factor Index; CFI: Comparative Factor Index; NNFI: Non-normed Fit Index; AGFI: Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index; RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation. *p ≤ 0.01.
Figure 2CFA-LISREL.
Descriptive data.
| Factors | Mean [±SD] |
|---|---|
| Age (years) | 50.53 ± 12.706 |
| BMI (wt/m2) | 29.92 ± 5.59 |
| NRS (0–10) scale | 7.05 ± 1.55 |
| Girth (cm) | 42.31 ± 5.05 |
| ROM (degrees) | 126.48 ± 8.35 |
| KOS (0–100) scale | 45.87 ± 21.05 |
BMI: body mass index; NRS: Numeric Rating Scale; ROM: Range of Motion-Flexion; KOS: knee outcome survey.
Correlation coefficients between KOS and factors affecting knee pain for group-2.
| Factors | Correlation with KOS |
|---|---|
| Age (years) | 0.351** |
| BMI (wt/m2) | 0.382** |
| NRS (0–10) scale | 0.344** |
| Girth (cm) | 0.333** |
| ROM (degrees) | 0.680** |
BMI: body mass index; NRS: Numeric Rating Scale; ROM: Range of Motion-Flexion; KOS: knee outcome survey.
Significant correlations: p ≤ 0.01 in **.
Figure 3Bootstrap regression analysis in PLS-3.
Bootstrapping: mediation analysis summary (PROCESS-SPSS).
| Predictors of KOS | R 2 | MSE | F | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct effect | B | SE | t | p | LLCI | ULCI |
| GIRTH-BMI-KOS | ||||||
| 0.48 | 17.17 | 56.4059* | ||||
| X on Y | 0.72 | 0.55 | 1.31 | 0.19 | 0.33 | 1.82 |
| Total effect | 1.59 | 0.49 | 3.19 | 0.00* | 0.59 | 2.59 |
| Indirect effect of X on Y | 2.32 | 0.43 | 1.55 | 3.34 | ||
| Pain-BMI-KOS | ||||||
| 0.47 | 242.4 | 27.16* | ||||
| X on Y | 1.68 | 1.3 | 1.26 | 0.20 | 0.97 | 4.33 |
| Total effect | 4.31 | 1.64 | 2.21 | 0.01* | 1.01 | 7.61 |
| Indirect effect of X on Y | 2.63 | 1.01 | 0.97 | 5.07 | ||
BMI: body mass index; KOS: knee outcome survey. *p ≤ 0.01.
Effect size significance.
| Variables | Effect | SE | Z value | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pain-BMI-KOS | 2.63 | 1.15 | 2.28 | 0.02* |
| Girth-BMI-KOS | 2.13 | 0.48 | 4.38 | 0.00* |
BMI: body mass index; KOS: knee outcome survey; SE: Standard Error, p ≤ 0.01.