Aims. Responsiveness to clinically important change is a key feature of any outcome measure. Throughout Europe, health-related quality of life following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is routinely measured with EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaires. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 10-Question Short-Form (PROMIS-10 Global Health) score is a new general heath outcome tool which is thought to offer greater responsiveness. Our aim was to compare these two tools. Patients and Methods. We accessed data from a prospective multicentre cohort study in the United Kingdom, which evaluated outcomes following TKA. The median age of the 721 patients was 69.0 years (interquartile range, 63.3 to 74.6). There was an even division of sex, and approximately half were educated to secondary school level. The preoperative EQ-5D, PROMIS-10, and Oxford Knee Scores (OKS) were available and at three, six, and 12 months postoperatively. Internal responsiveness was assessed by standardized response mean (SRM) and effect size (Cohen’s d). External responsiveness was assessed by correlating change scores of the EQ-5D and PROMIS-10, with the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the OKS. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess the ability of change scores to discriminate between improved and non-improved patients. Results. All measures showed significant changes between the preoperative score and the various postoperative times (p < 0.001). Most improvement occurred during the first three months, with small but significant changes between three and six months, and no further change between six and 12 months postoperatively. SRM scores for EQ-5D, PROMIS-10, and OKS were large (> 0.8). ROC curves showed that both EQ-5D and PROMIS-10 were able to discriminate between patients who achieved the OKS MCID and those who did not (area under the curve (AUC) of 0.7 to 0.82). Conclusion. The PROMIS-10 physical health tool showed greater responsiveness to change than the EQ-5D, most probably due to the additional questions on physical health parameters that are more susceptible to modification following TKA. The EQ-5D was, however, shown to be sensitive to clinically meaningful change following TKA, and provides the additional ability to calculate health economic utility scores. It is likely, therefore, that EQ-5D will continue to be the global health metric of choice in the United Kingdom. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:832–837

Aims

To estimate the measurement properties for the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty (responsiveness, minimal detectable change (MDC-90), minimal important change (MIC), minimal important difference (MID), internal consistency, construct validity, and interpretability).

The primary aim of this study was to develop a patient-reported Activity & Participation Questionnaire (the OKS-APQ) to supplement the Oxford knee score, in order to assess higher levels of activity and participation. The generation of items for the questionnaire involved interviews with 26 patients. Psychometric analysis (exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis) guided the reduction of items and the generation of a scale within a prospective study of 122 relatively young patients (mean age 61.5 years (42 to 71)) prior to knee replacement. A total of 99, completed pre-operative and six month post-operative assessments (new items, OKS, Short-Form 36 and American Knee Society Score).

The eight-item OKS-APQ scale is unidimensional, reliable (Cronbach’s alpha 0.85; intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.79; or 0.92 when one outlier was excluded), valid (r >  0.5 with related scales) and responsive (effect size 4.16).

We recommend that it is used with the OKS with adults of all ages when further detail regarding the levels of activity and participation of a patient is required.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:332–8.

This study validates the short-form WOMAC function scale for assessment of conservative treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee. Data were collected before treatment and six and nine months later, from 100 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee to determine the validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, floor and ceiling effects, and responsiveness of the short-form WOMAC function scale. The scale showed high correlation with the traditional WOMAC and other measures. The internal consistency was good (Cronbach α: 0.88 to 0.95) and an excellent test-retest reliability was found (Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (ρ_c): 0.85 to 0.94). The responsiveness was adequate and comparable to that of the traditional WOMAC (standardised response mean 0.56 to 0.44 and effect size 0.64 to 0.57) and appeared not to be significantly affected by floor or ceiling effects (0% and 7%, respectively).

The short-form WOMAC function scale is a valid, reliable and responsive alternative to the traditional WOMAC in the evaluation of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee managed conservatively. It is simple to use in daily practice and is therefore less of a burden for patients in clinical trials.

Accurate, reproducible outcome measures are essential for the evaluation of any orthopaedic procedure, in both clinical practice and research.

Commonly used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have drawbacks such as ‘floor’ and ‘ceiling’ effects, limitations of worldwide adaptability and an inability to distinguish pain from function. They are also unable to measure the true outcome of an intervention rather than a patient’s perception of that outcome.

Performance-based functional outcome tools may address these problems. It is important that both clinicians and researchers are aware of these measures when dealing with high-demand patients, using a new intervention or implant, or testing a new rehabilitation protocol.

This article provides an overview of some of the clinically-validated performance-based functional outcome tools used in the assessment of patients undergoing hip and knee surgery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1431–5.