To map the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and High Activity Arthroplasty Score (HAAS) items to a common scale, and to investigate the psychometric properties of this new scale for the measurement of knee health. Patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) data measuring knee health were obtained from the NHS PROMs dataset and Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial (TOPKAT). Assumptions for common scale modelling were tested. A graded response model (fitted to OKS item responses in the NHS PROMs dataset) was used as an anchor to calibrate paired HAAS items from the TOPKAT dataset. Information curves for the combined OKS-HAAS model were plotted. Bland-Altman analysis was used to compare common scale scores derived from OKS and HAAS items. A conversion table was developed to map between HAAS, OKS, and the common scale.Aims
Methods
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). Secondary data analysis was performed for 10,727 patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty between 2013 to 2019 using a UK national patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) dataset. Outcome data were collected before revision and at six months postoperatively, using the OKS and EuroQol five-dimension score (EQ-5D). Measurement properties were assessed according to COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to identify the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), minimal important change (MIC), minimal detectable change (MDC), and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) threshold in the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) according to patient satisfaction six months following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). During a one-year period 484 patients underwent a primary TKA and completed preoperative and six-month FJS and OKS. At six months patients were asked, “How satisfied are you with your operated knee?” Their response was recorded as: very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied. The difference between patients recording neutral (n = 44) and satisfied (n = 153) was used to define the MCID. MIC for a cohort was defined as the change in the FJS for those patients declaring their outcome as satisfied, whereas receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine the MIC for an individual and the PASS threshold. Distribution-based methodology was used to calculate the MDC.Aims
Methods
