Shiraz A Sabah1, Abtin Alvand2, David J Beard3, Andrew J Price2. 1. Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford. Electronic address: shiraz.sabah@ndorms.ox.ac.uk. 2. Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford; Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford. 3. Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To create estimates for clinically meaningful changes and differences in pain and joint function for the Oxford Hip and Knee Scores (OHS/OKS) in primary and revision joint replacement. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: 694,487 primary and revision joint replacement procedures were analyzed from the NHS PROMs dataset between 2012-2020. Minimal important changes (MIC) and differences (MID) were calculated using distribution and anchor-based methods (including receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve and predictive-modelling techniques). RESULTS: For comparison of two or more groups (such as in a clinic trial), MID estimates were ∼5 points. For cohort studies investigating changes over time in a single group of patients, MICgroup estimates were 12.4 points (primary hip replacement), 8.6 points (revision hip replacement), 10.5 points (primary knee replacement) and 9.4 points (revision knee replacement). For studies investigating changes over time at the individual patient level, MICadjusted estimates were ∼8 points, ∼6 points, ∼7 points and ∼6 points respectively. CONCLUSION: This study has calculated contemporary estimates of clinically important changes and differences for the OHS/OKS for primary and revision hip and knee replacement. These estimates can be used to inform sample size calculations and to interpret changes in joint function over time and differences between groups.
OBJECTIVES: To create estimates for clinically meaningful changes and differences in pain and joint function for the Oxford Hip and Knee Scores (OHS/OKS) in primary and revision joint replacement. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: 694,487 primary and revision joint replacement procedures were analyzed from the NHS PROMs dataset between 2012-2020. Minimal important changes (MIC) and differences (MID) were calculated using distribution and anchor-based methods (including receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve and predictive-modelling techniques). RESULTS: For comparison of two or more groups (such as in a clinic trial), MID estimates were ∼5 points. For cohort studies investigating changes over time in a single group of patients, MICgroup estimates were 12.4 points (primary hip replacement), 8.6 points (revision hip replacement), 10.5 points (primary knee replacement) and 9.4 points (revision knee replacement). For studies investigating changes over time at the individual patient level, MICadjusted estimates were ∼8 points, ∼6 points, ∼7 points and ∼6 points respectively. CONCLUSION: This study has calculated contemporary estimates of clinically important changes and differences for the OHS/OKS for primary and revision hip and knee replacement. These estimates can be used to inform sample size calculations and to interpret changes in joint function over time and differences between groups.
Authors: Ilana N Ackerman; Ian A Harris; Kara Cashman; Neville Rowden; Michelle Lorimer; Stephen E Graves Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2022-06-30 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Lina Holm Ingelsrud; J Mark Wilkinson; Soren Overgaard; Ola Rolfson; Brian Hallstrom; Ronald A Navarro; Michael Terner; Sunita Karmakar-Hore; Greg Webster; Luke Slawomirski; Adrian Sayers; Candan Kendir; Katherine de Bienassis; Niek Klazinga; Annette W Dahl; Eric Bohm Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2022-07-08 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Lasse K Harris; Anders Troelsen; Berend Terluin; Kirill Gromov; Andrew Price; Lina H Ingelsrud Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2022-07-05 Impact factor: 3.925