Literature DB >> 35125779

Thresholds for meaningful improvement in WOMAC scores need to be adjusted to patient characteristics after hip and knee replacement.

David Kuklinski1, Carlos J Marques2, Karina Bohlen3, Karl C Westphal4, Frank Lampe3,5, Alexander Geissler6.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To calculate unstratified and patient-specific meaningful improvement (MI) and patient acceptable symptom states (PASS) for the WOMAC total score in patients after total hip (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR).
METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort study. Anchor-based receiver operator characteristics curves were used to estimate MI and PASS thresholds.
RESULTS: Recovery paths were specific to individual characteristics of patients. An unstratified 12-months MI threshold of 28.1 (PASS: 13.3) and 17.8 (PASS: 15.8) for patients after THR and TKR, respectively, would unfairly detect critical recovery paths.
CONCLUSIONS: Thresholds for treatment success need to be as patient-specific as possible.
© 2022 Professor P K Surendran Memorial Education Foundation. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Level of evidence: level III; MI, Meaningful Improvement; Meaningful improvement; PASS, Patient Acceptable Symptom State; PROMs, Patient-Reported Outcome Measures; Patient-reported outcomes; Prognostic study; THR, Total Hip Replacement; TKR, Total Knee Replacement; Total hip replacement; Total knee replacement; VBHC, Value-Based Health Care; Value-based health care; WOMAC; WOMAC, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index

Year:  2022        PMID: 35125779      PMCID: PMC8803617          DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2022.01.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop        ISSN: 0972-978X


  40 in total

1.  Reproducibility and responsiveness of evaluative outcome measures. Theoretical considerations illustrated by an empirical example.

Authors:  H C de Vet; L M Bouter; P D Bezemer; A J Beurskens
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.188

2.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

Authors:  Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Matthias Egger; Stuart J Pocock; Peter C Gøtzsche; Jan P Vandenbroucke
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2007-10-20       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 3.  A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods.

Authors:  Madeleine T King
Journal:  Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 2.217

4.  CORR Insights®: What is the Minimum Clinically Important Difference for the WOMAC Index After TKA?

Authors:  Mitchell Maltenfort
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  The minimal clinically important difference determined using item response theory models: an attempt to solve the issue of the association with baseline score.

Authors:  Alexandra Rouquette; Myriam Blanchin; Véronique Sébille; Francis Guillemin; Sylvana M Côté; Bruno Falissard; Jean-Benoit Hardouin
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2014-01-18       Impact factor: 6.437

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.  TKA patients experience less improvement than THA patients at 3 and 12 months after surgery. A retrospective observational cohort study.

Authors:  Carlos J Marques; Hans O Pinnschmidt; Karina Bohlen; Juergen Lorenz; Frank Lampe
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2020-09-17

8.  The WOMAC score can be reliably used to classify patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Lucy C Walker; Nick D Clement; Michelle Bardgett; David Weir; Jim Holland; Craig Gerrand; David J Deehan
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2018-02-26       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  Three ways to quantify uncertainty in individually applied "minimally important change" values.

Authors:  Henrica C W de Vet; Berend Terluin; Dirk L Knol; Leo D Roorda; Lidwine B Mokkink; Raymond W J G Ostelo; Erik J M Hendriks; Lex M Bouter; Caroline B Terwee
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2009-06-21       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 10.  Minimal clinically important improvement/difference (MCII/MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS): what do these concepts mean?

Authors:  Tore K Kvien; Turid Heiberg; Kåre B Hagen
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 19.103

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.