The subjective knee value is a valid single-item survey to assess knee function in common knee disorders.
Evaluation
Knee disorder
Knee function
PROM
Subjective knee value
Journal
Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery
ISSN: 1434-3916
Titre abrégé: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9011043
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2022
Aug 2022
Historique:
received:
15
07
2020
accepted:
12
01
2021
pubmed:
2
2
2021
medline:
22
7
2022
entrez:
1
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The patient's perspective plays a key role in judging the effect of knee disorders on physical function. We have introduced the Subjective Knee Value (SKV) to simplify the evaluation of individual's knee function by providing one simple question. The purpose of this prospective study was to validate the SKV with accepted multiple-item knee surveys across patients with orthopaedic knee disorders. Between January through March 2020, consecutive patients (n = 160; mean age 51 ± 18 years, range from 18 to 85 years, 54% women) attending the outpatient clinic for knee complaints caused by osteoarthritis (n = 69), meniscal lesion (n = 45), tear of the anterior cruciate ligament (n = 23) and focal chondral defect (n = 23) were invited to complete a knee-specific survey including the SKV along with the Knee Injury Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee form (IKDC-S). The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to evaluate external validity between the SKV and each patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) separately. Furthermore, patient's compliance was assessed by comparing responding rates. Overall, the SKV highly correlated with both the KOOS (R = 0.758, p < 0.05) and the IKDC-S (R = 0.802, p < 0.05). This was also demonstrated across all investigated diagnosis- and demographic-specific (gender, age) subgroups (range 0.509-0.936). No relevant floor/ceiling effects were noticed. The responding rate for the SKV (96%) was significantly higher when compared with those for the KOOS (81%) and the IKDC-S (83%) (p < 0.05). At baseline, the SKV exhibits acceptable validity across all investigated knee-specific PROMs in a broad patient population with a wide array of knee disorders. The simplified survey format without compromising the precision to evaluate individual's knee function justifies implementation in daily clinical practice. II, cohort study (diagnosis).
Identifiants
pubmed: 33523264
doi: 10.1007/s00402-021-03794-3
pii: 10.1007/s00402-021-03794-3
pmc: PMC9296395
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1723-1730Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Filbay SR, Culvenor AG, Ackerman IN, Russell TG, Crossley KM (2015) Quality of life in anterior cruciate ligament-deficient individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 49:1033–1041. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-094864
doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-094864
pubmed: 26224582
Törmälehto S, Mononen ME, Aarnio E, Arokoski JPA, Korhonen RK, Martikainen J (2018) Health-related quality of life in relation to symptomatic and radiographic definitions of knee osteoarthritis: data from osteoarthritis initiative (OAI) 4-year follow-up study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 16:154. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0979-7
doi: 10.1186/s12955-018-0979-7
pubmed: 30064434
pmcid: 6069966
Goh GS, Abd Razak HRB, Tay DKJ, Lo NN, Yeo SJ (2020) Early post-operative oxford knee score and knee society score predict patient satisfaction 2 years after total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03612-2
doi: 10.1007/s00402-020-03612-2
pubmed: 33044708
Konopka JF, Lee Y-Y, Su EP, McLawhorn AS (2018) Quality-adjusted life years after hip and knee arthroplasty: health-related quality of life after 12,782 joint replacements. JB JS Open Access 3:e0007. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.18.00007
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.18.00007
pubmed: 30533590
pmcid: 6242318
Filbay SR, Ackerman IN, Russell TG, Macri EM, Crossley KM (2014) Health-related quality of life after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med 42:1247–1255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546513512774
doi: 10.1177/0363546513512774
pubmed: 24318609
Costa-Paz M, Garcia-Mansilla I, Marciano S, Ayerza MA, Muscolo DL (2019) Knee-related quality of life, functional results and osteoarthritis at a minimum of 20 years’ follow-up after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee 26:666–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2019.04.010
doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2019.04.010
pubmed: 31103415
Thaunat M, Fournier G, O’Loughlin P, Kouevidjin BT, Clowez G, Borella M et al (2020) Clinical outcome and failure analysis of medial meniscus bucket-handle tear repair: a series of 96 patients with a minimum 2 year follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03346-1
doi: 10.1007/s00402-020-03346-1
pubmed: 32507947
Kaiser N, Jakob RP, Pagenstert G, Tannast M, Petek D (2020) Stable clinical long term results after AMIC in the aligned knee. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03564-7
doi: 10.1007/s00402-020-03564-7
pubmed: 33040206
pmcid: 8354924
Collins NJ, Misra D, Felson DT, Crossley KM, Roos EM (2011) Measures of knee function: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical Function Short Form (KOOS-PS), Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADL), Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster. Arthritis Care Res 63:S208. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20632
doi: 10.1002/acr.20632
Müller W, Biedert R, Hefti F, Jakob RP, Munzinger U, Stäubli HU (1988) OAK knee evaluation. A new way to assess knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res p. 37–50
Lysholm J, Gillquist J (1982) Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med 10:150–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/036354658201000306
doi: 10.1177/036354658201000306
pubmed: 6896798
Hildon Z, Neuburger J, Allwood D, Van Der Meulen J, Black N (2012) Clinicians and patients views of metrics of change derived from patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for comparing providers performance of surgery. BMC Health Serv Res. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-171
doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-171
pubmed: 22721422
pmcid: 3426480
Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD (1998) Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS)—development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 28:88–96. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.1998.28.2.88
doi: 10.2519/jospt.1998.28.2.88
pubmed: 9699158
Hefti E, Müller W, Jakob RP, Stäubli HU (1993) Evaluation of knee ligament injuries with the IKDC form. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1:226–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01560215
doi: 10.1007/BF01560215
pubmed: 8536037
Rombach I, Rivero-Arias O, Gray AM, Jenkinson C, Burke Ó (2016) The current practice of handling and reporting missing outcome data in eight widely used PROMs in RCT publications: a review of the current literature. Qual Life Res 25:1613–1623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1206-1
doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-1206-1
pubmed: 26821918
pmcid: 4893363
Gomes M, Gutacker N, Bojke C, Street A (2016) Addressing missing data in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS): implications for the use of PROMS for comparing provider performance. Health Econ 25:515–528. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3173
doi: 10.1002/hec.3173
pubmed: 25740592
Perneger TV, Chamot E, Bovier PA (2005) Nonresponse bias in a survey of patient perceptions of hospital care. Med Care 43:374–380. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000156856.36901.40
doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000156856.36901.40
pubmed: 15778640
Gilbart MK, Gerber C (2007) Comparison of the subjective shoulder value and the constant score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 16:717–721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2007.02.123
doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2007.02.123
pubmed: 18061114
Schneeberger AG, Kösters MC, Steens W (2014) Comparison of the subjective elbow value and the mayo elbow performance score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 23:308–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2013.11.018
doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2013.11.018
pubmed: 24524980
Williams GN, Gangel TJ, Arciero RA, Uhorchak JM, Taylor DC (1999) Comparison of the single assessment numeric evaluation method and two shoulder rating scales. Outcomes measures after shoulder surgery. Am J Sports Med 27:214–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465990270021701
doi: 10.1177/03635465990270021701
pubmed: 10102104
Williams GN, Taylor DC, Gangel TJ, Uhorchak JM, Arciero RA (2000) Comparison of the single assessment numeric evaluation method and the Lysholm score. Clin Orthop Relat Res. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200004000-00022
doi: 10.1097/00003086-200004000-00022
pubmed: 10943205
Garcia AN, Cook C, Lutz A, Thigpen CA (2019) Concurrent validity of the single assessment numerical evaluation and patient-reported functional measures in patients with musculoskeletal disorders: an observational study. Musculoskelet Sci Pract 44:102057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msksp.2019.102057
doi: 10.1016/j.msksp.2019.102057
pubmed: 31542682
Razaeian S, Wiese B, Zhang D, Krettek C, Meller R, Hawi N (2020) Correlation between Oxford elbow score and single assessment numeric evaluation: is one simple question enough? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2020.01.067
doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.01.067
pubmed: 32245727
O’Connor CM, Ring D (2019) Correlation of single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE) with other patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). Arch Bone Jt Surg 7:303–306
pubmed: 31448305
pmcid: 6686068
Thigpen CA, Shanley E, Momaya AM, Kissenberth MJ, Tolan SJ, Tokish JM et al (2018) Validity and responsiveness of the single alpha-numeric evaluation for shoulder patients. Am J Sports Med 46:3480–3485. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546518807924
doi: 10.1177/0363546518807924
pubmed: 30419173
Shelbourne KD, Barnes AF, Gray T (2012) Correlation of a single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE) rating with modified Cincinnati knee rating system and IKDC subjective total scores for patients after ACL reconstruction or knee arthroscopy. Am J Sports Med 40:2487–2491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546512458576
doi: 10.1177/0363546512458576
pubmed: 22972851
Austin DC, Torchia MT, Werth PM, Lucas AP, Moschetti WE, Jevsevar DS (2019) A one-question patient-reported outcome measure is comparable to multiple-question measures in total knee arthroplasty patients. J Arthroplasty 34:2937–2943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.07.023
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.07.023
pubmed: 31439407
Winterstein AP, McGuine TA, Carr KE, Hetzel SJ (2013) Comparison of IKDC and SANE outcome measures following knee injury in active female patients. Sports Health 5:523–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/1941738113499300
doi: 10.1177/1941738113499300
pubmed: 24427427
pmcid: 3806180
Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL, Harner CD, Kurosaka M, Neyret P et al (2001) Development and validation of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form. Am J Sports Med 29:600–613. https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465010290051301
doi: 10.1177/03635465010290051301
pubmed: 11573919
Roos EM, Toksvig-Larsen S (2003) Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)—validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement. Health Qual Life Outcomes. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-1-17
doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-17
pubmed: 14613567
pmcid: 280702
Salavati M, Akhbari B, Mohammadi F, Mazaheri M, Khorrami M (2011) Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS); reliability and validity in competitive athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Osteoarthritis Cartil 19:406–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2011.01.010
doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2011.01.010
Bekkers JEJ, de Windt TS, Raijmakers NJH, Dhert WJA, Saris DBF (2009) Validation of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) for the treatment of focal cartilage lesions. Osteoarthritis Cartil 17:1434–1439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2009.04.019
doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2009.04.019
Agel J, Laprade RF (2009) Assessment of differences between the modified Cincinnati and International Knee Documentation Committee patient outcome scores: a prospective study. Am J Sports Med 37:2151–2157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546509337698
doi: 10.1177/0363546509337698
pubmed: 19633231
Crawford K, Briggs KK, Rodkey WG, Steadman JR (2007) Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the IKDC score for meniscus injuries of the knee. Arthroscopy 23:839–844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2007.02.005
doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2007.02.005
pubmed: 17681205
Greco NJ, Anderson AF, Mann BJ, Cole BJ, Farr J, Nissen CW et al (2010) Responsiveness of the international knee documentation committee subjective knee form in comparison to the western Ontario and McMaster universities osteoarthritis index, modified Cincinnati knee rating system, and short form 36 in patients with focal articular cartilage defects. Am J Sports Med 38:891–902. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546509354163
doi: 10.1177/0363546509354163
pubmed: 20044494
Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8:135–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/096228029900800204
doi: 10.1177/096228029900800204
pubmed: 10501650
Sueyoshi T, Emoto G, Yato T (2018) Correlation between Single assessment numerical evaluation score and Lysholm score in primary total knee arthroplasty patients. Arthroplast Today 4:99–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2017.09.004
doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2017.09.004
pubmed: 29560403
Pietrosimone B, Luc BA, Duncan A, Saliba SA, Hart JM, Ingersoll CD (2017) Association between the single assessment numeric evaluation and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. J Athl Train 52:526–533. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-52.5.07
doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-52.5.07
pubmed: 28653867
pmcid: 5488843
Van Meer BL, Meuffels DE, Vissers MM, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA, Verhaar JAN, Terwee CB et al (2013) Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score or international knee documentation committee subjective knee form: which questionnaire is most useful to monitor patients with an anterior cruciate ligament rupture in the short term? Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg 29:701–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2012.12.015
doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2012.12.015
van de Graaf VA, Wolterbeek N, Scholtes VAB, Mutsaerts ELAR, Poolman RW (2014) Reliability and validity of the IKDC, KOOS, and WOMAC for patients with meniscal injuries. Am J Sports Med 42:1408–1416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546514524698
doi: 10.1177/0363546514524698
pubmed: 24618098
Engelhart L, Nelson L, Lewis S, Mordin M, Demuro-Mercon C, Uddin S et al (2012) Validation of the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score subscales for patients with articular cartilage lesions of the knee. Am J Sports Med 40:2264–2272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546512457646
doi: 10.1177/0363546512457646
pubmed: 22962288
Roos EM, Roos HP, Ekdahl C, Lohmander LS (2007) Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)—validation of a Swedish version. Scand J Med Sci Sports 8:439–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.1998.tb00465.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.1998.tb00465.x
Jeong J-N, Kim S-H, Park K-N (2019) Relationship between objectively measured lifestyle factors and health factors in patients with knee osteoarthritis: the STROBE study. Medicine (Baltimore) 98:e16060. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000016060
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000016060
Eitner A, Culvenor AG, Wirth W, Schaible H, Eckstein F (2020) Impact of diabetes mellitus on knee osteoarthritis pain and physical and mental status: data from the osteoarthritis initiative. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.24173
doi: 10.1002/acr.24173
Jacobs CA, Vranceanu AM, Thompson KL, Lattermann C (2020) Rapid progression of knee pain and osteoarthritis biomarkers greatest for patients with combined obesity and depression: data from the osteoarthritis initiative. Cartilage 11:38–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1947603518777577
doi: 10.1177/1947603518777577
pubmed: 29855190
Paradowski PT, Bergman S, Sundén-Lundius A, Lohmander LS, Roos EM (2006) Knee complaints vary with age and gender in the adult population. Population-based reference data for the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS). BMC Musculoskelet Disord. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-7-38
doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-7-38
pubmed: 16670005
pmcid: 1471783
Marot V, Murgier J, Carrozzo A, Reina N, Monaco E, Chiron P et al (2019) Determination of normal KOOS and WOMAC values in a healthy population. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:541–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5153-6
doi: 10.1007/s00167-018-5153-6
pubmed: 30251101