Jessica L Johnson1,2, James J Irrgang3,4, May Arna Risberg5,6, Lynn Snyder-Mackler1,2. 1. Biomechanics and Movement Science Program, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, USA. 2. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, USA. 3. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. 5. Department of Sport Medicine, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, Norway. 6. Division of Orthopedic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The selection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is essential for obtaining meaningful information to treat a patient, determine a plan of care, and make clinical decisions; however, the process of selecting PROMs for clinical care is difficult, with the need to balance these multiple factors. Variation makes it difficult to compare data across providers and studies. HYPOTHESIS/ PURPOSE: The purpose was to determine the responsiveness of 4 PROMs via effect size and the presence of a ceiling effect in the 5 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). We hypothesized that the single-item Global Rating Scale (GRS) would have an effect size and ceiling effect similar to the commonly used legacy PROMs. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Of the 300 participants, 218 had ACLR, completed postoperative progressive criterion-based rehabilitation early after surgery, and were followed for 5 years. We collected data based on the GRS, the Knee Outcome Survey-Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADLS), the International Knee Documentation Committee-Subjective Knee Form (IKDC-SKF), and the KOOS (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) before and after training and at 6, 12, 24, and 60 months after ACLR. RESULTS: The IKDC-SKF had the largest effect sizes and lowest ceiling effects. The GRS had a similar size and change in both effect size and ceiling effect when compared with the longer PROMs. The GRS and IKDC-SKF had a correlation of 0.72, and the GRS had a minimal detectable change of 2.9 or 4.8, depending on methodology. CONCLUSION: The GRS responded similarly to the IKDC-SKF, KOS-ADLS, and KOOS and was responsive to patient change. The ease of use and patient-specific nature of the question means that it may be appropriate to use the GRS in clinical care as a consistent measure throughout the course of rehabilitation.
BACKGROUND: The selection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is essential for obtaining meaningful information to treat a patient, determine a plan of care, and make clinical decisions; however, the process of selecting PROMs for clinical care is difficult, with the need to balance these multiple factors. Variation makes it difficult to compare data across providers and studies. HYPOTHESIS/ PURPOSE: The purpose was to determine the responsiveness of 4 PROMs via effect size and the presence of a ceiling effect in the 5 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). We hypothesized that the single-item Global Rating Scale (GRS) would have an effect size and ceiling effect similar to the commonly used legacy PROMs. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Of the 300 participants, 218 had ACLR, completed postoperative progressive criterion-based rehabilitation early after surgery, and were followed for 5 years. We collected data based on the GRS, the Knee Outcome Survey-Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADLS), the International Knee Documentation Committee-Subjective Knee Form (IKDC-SKF), and the KOOS (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) before and after training and at 6, 12, 24, and 60 months after ACLR. RESULTS: The IKDC-SKF had the largest effect sizes and lowest ceiling effects. The GRS had a similar size and change in both effect size and ceiling effect when compared with the longer PROMs. The GRS and IKDC-SKF had a correlation of 0.72, and the GRS had a minimal detectable change of 2.9 or 4.8, depending on methodology. CONCLUSION: The GRS responded similarly to the IKDC-SKF, KOS-ADLS, and KOOS and was responsive to patient change. The ease of use and patient-specific nature of the question means that it may be appropriate to use the GRS in clinical care as a consistent measure throughout the course of rehabilitation.
Authors: R G Marx; E C Jones; A A Allen; D W Altchek; S J O'Brien; S A Rodeo; R J Williams; R F Warren; T L Wickiewicz Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Clare L Ardern; Philip Glasgow; Anthony Schneiders; Erik Witvrouw; Benjamin Clarsen; Ann Cools; Boris Gojanovic; Steffan Griffin; Karim M Khan; Håvard Moksnes; Stephen A Mutch; Nicola Phillips; Gustaaf Reurink; Robin Sadler; Karin Grävare Silbernagel; Kristian Thorborg; Arnlaug Wangensteen; Kevin E Wilk; Mario Bizzini Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2016-05-25 Impact factor: 13.800