Responsiveness and interpretability of the pain subscale of the Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Scale (KOOS and HOOS) in osteoarthritis patients according to COSMIN guidelines.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
19
03
2023
accepted:
19
10
2023
medline:
27
11
2023
pubmed:
17
11
2023
entrez:
16
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The pain subscales of the Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOS and HOOS) are among the most frequently applied, patient reported outcomes to assess pain in osteoarthritis patients and evaluation of the results after Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) and Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). For the evaluation of change over time it is essential to know the responsiveness and interpretability of these measurement instruments. Aim of this study is to investigate responsiveness and interpretability of the KOOS and HOOS pain subscales in patients with knee or hip OA and patients after TKA and THA as recommended by COSMIN guidelines. COSMIN stands for COnsensus based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments. COSMIN recommends methods for assessing responsiveness similar to those assessing validity, using extensive hypothesis testing to assess criterion validity and construct validity of the change score. This clinimetric study was conducted using data obtained from the Duloxetine in OsteoArthritis (DOA) trial. Primary knee or hip osteoarthritis patients were included. During the study, half of the participants received pre-operative targeted treatment with duloxetine, and all participants received TKA or THA. Patients filled out a set of patient-reported outcomes at several time points. Using the criterion validity approach the change scores of the KOOS and HOOS pain subscales directly after duloxetine treatment but before TKA and THA were correlated to the Patient Global Improvement anchor-question (PGI-I). Receiver Operating Characteristic curves (ROC curves) were obtained. Using the construct validity approach, hypothesis testing was conducted investigating the correlation between change scores in the KOOS and HOOS pain subscale with change scores in other questionnaires six months after TKA and THA. For interpretability, an anchor-based approach was used to consider the Minimally Important Change (MIC) of the KOOS and HOOS pain subscale. We compared the outcomes after duloxetine treatment and six months after TKA and THA in order to investigate any response shift. Ninety-three participants (53 knee patients and 41 hip patients) were included. Mean change was 4.3 and 4.6 points after conservative treatment for knee and hip OA patients respectively and 31.7 and 48.8 points after TKA and THA respectively. The KOOS and HOOS pain subscales both showed a gradual increase in change scores over the different categories of improvement on the PGI-I, with an Area Under the Curve of 0.72 (95% CI 0.527-0.921) and 0.79 (95% CI 0.588-0.983) respectively. Of the predefined hypotheses, 69% were confirmed for both subscales. The MICs were between 12.2 to 37.9 for the KOOS pain subscale, and between 11.8 to 48.6 for the HOOS pain subscale, depending on whether the PGI-I was administered after conservative treatment, or six months after TKA and THA. This study endorses the responsiveness of the KOOS and HOOS pain subscales in patients with knee or hip OA and patients after TKA and THA based on construct and criterion validity approaches. The KOOS pain subscale might be able to detect the MIC at an individual level after arthroplasty, but both the KOOS and HOOS pain subscales were not able to do so after conservative treatment. This study is the first to report a considerable response shift in MIC of the KOOS and HOOS pain subscales. This should be taken into consideration when evaluating MIC of the KOOS and HOOS pain subscale after conservative versus operative treatment. Future research should present more reference data regarding MIC scores after different treatments.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The pain subscales of the Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOS and HOOS) are among the most frequently applied, patient reported outcomes to assess pain in osteoarthritis patients and evaluation of the results after Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) and Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). For the evaluation of change over time it is essential to know the responsiveness and interpretability of these measurement instruments. Aim of this study is to investigate responsiveness and interpretability of the KOOS and HOOS pain subscales in patients with knee or hip OA and patients after TKA and THA as recommended by COSMIN guidelines. COSMIN stands for COnsensus based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments. COSMIN recommends methods for assessing responsiveness similar to those assessing validity, using extensive hypothesis testing to assess criterion validity and construct validity of the change score.
DESIGN
METHODS
This clinimetric study was conducted using data obtained from the Duloxetine in OsteoArthritis (DOA) trial. Primary knee or hip osteoarthritis patients were included. During the study, half of the participants received pre-operative targeted treatment with duloxetine, and all participants received TKA or THA. Patients filled out a set of patient-reported outcomes at several time points.
METHODS
METHODS
Using the criterion validity approach the change scores of the KOOS and HOOS pain subscales directly after duloxetine treatment but before TKA and THA were correlated to the Patient Global Improvement anchor-question (PGI-I). Receiver Operating Characteristic curves (ROC curves) were obtained. Using the construct validity approach, hypothesis testing was conducted investigating the correlation between change scores in the KOOS and HOOS pain subscale with change scores in other questionnaires six months after TKA and THA. For interpretability, an anchor-based approach was used to consider the Minimally Important Change (MIC) of the KOOS and HOOS pain subscale. We compared the outcomes after duloxetine treatment and six months after TKA and THA in order to investigate any response shift.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Ninety-three participants (53 knee patients and 41 hip patients) were included. Mean change was 4.3 and 4.6 points after conservative treatment for knee and hip OA patients respectively and 31.7 and 48.8 points after TKA and THA respectively. The KOOS and HOOS pain subscales both showed a gradual increase in change scores over the different categories of improvement on the PGI-I, with an Area Under the Curve of 0.72 (95% CI 0.527-0.921) and 0.79 (95% CI 0.588-0.983) respectively. Of the predefined hypotheses, 69% were confirmed for both subscales. The MICs were between 12.2 to 37.9 for the KOOS pain subscale, and between 11.8 to 48.6 for the HOOS pain subscale, depending on whether the PGI-I was administered after conservative treatment, or six months after TKA and THA.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study endorses the responsiveness of the KOOS and HOOS pain subscales in patients with knee or hip OA and patients after TKA and THA based on construct and criterion validity approaches. The KOOS pain subscale might be able to detect the MIC at an individual level after arthroplasty, but both the KOOS and HOOS pain subscales were not able to do so after conservative treatment. This study is the first to report a considerable response shift in MIC of the KOOS and HOOS pain subscales. This should be taken into consideration when evaluating MIC of the KOOS and HOOS pain subscale after conservative versus operative treatment. Future research should present more reference data regarding MIC scores after different treatments.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37971978
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293760
pii: PONE-D-23-07675
pmc: PMC10653527
doi:
Substances chimiques
Duloxetine Hydrochloride
9044SC542W
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0293760Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2023 Rienstra et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013 Sep;21(9):1145-53
pubmed: 23973124
Postgrad Med. 2012 Jan;124(1):83-93
pubmed: 22314118
Psychol Med. 1997 Mar;27(2):363-70
pubmed: 9089829
Lancet. 2007 Oct 27;370(9597):1508-19
pubmed: 17964352
J Health Psychol. 2008 Sep;13(6):820-6
pubmed: 18697895
Br J Sports Med. 2010 Dec;44(16):1186-96
pubmed: 19666629
Int J Behav Med. 1996;3(2):104-22
pubmed: 16250758
Pain. 2009 Dec;146(3):253-260
pubmed: 19625125
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2017 Sep-Oct;35 Suppl 107(5):75-78
pubmed: 28967355
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2003 May 30;4:10
pubmed: 12777182
Curr Med Res Opin. 2006 Oct;22(10):1911-20
pubmed: 17022849
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2016 Aug;24(8):1317-29
pubmed: 27012756
BMJ Open. 2016 Mar 01;6(3):e010343
pubmed: 26932142
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003 Nov 03;1:64
pubmed: 14613558
PLoS One. 2015 Dec 31;10(12):e0146117
pubmed: 26720417
J Rheumatol. 2012 Feb;39(2):352-8
pubmed: 22133624
Lancet. 2019 Apr 27;393(10182):1745-1759
pubmed: 31034380
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Jul;63(7):737-45
pubmed: 20494804
Am J Sports Med. 2013 Dec;41(12):2791-9
pubmed: 24005872
BMJ Open. 2013 Aug 21;3(8):e003365
pubmed: 23965934
Arthroscopy. 2013 Apr;29(4):701-15
pubmed: 23402944
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019 Jan 2;101(1):64-73
pubmed: 30601417
J Pain. 2010 Dec;11(12):1282-90
pubmed: 20472510
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2013 Oct;92(10):864-70
pubmed: 23900017
Int J Gen Med. 2008 Nov 30;1:91-102
pubmed: 20428412
J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Nov;51(11):1055-68
pubmed: 9817123
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Dec;88(12):2590-5
pubmed: 17142408
Pain. 2007 Feb;127(3):199-203
pubmed: 17182186
Pain Med. 2015 Jul;16(7):1373-85
pubmed: 26176791
Pain Manag. 2014 May;4(3):233-43
pubmed: 24953075
BMJ Open. 2021 Nov 3;11(11):e052944
pubmed: 34732491
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Jan;62(1):91-6
pubmed: 19095168
Br J Sports Med. 2015 Jun;49(12):812
pubmed: 25586913
Acta Orthop. 2007 Feb;78(1):108-15
pubmed: 17453401
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2017 Jun;25(6):832-838
pubmed: 28043937
Disabil Rehabil. 2019 Apr;41(8):941-947
pubmed: 29221427