Meaningful values in the Forgotten Joint Score after total knee arthroplasty MINIMAL CLINICAL IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE, MINIMAL IMPORTANT AND DETECTABLE CHANGES, AND PATIENT-ACCEPTABLE SYMPTOM STATE

被引:72
作者
Clement, N. D. [1 ]
Scott, C. E. H. [1 ,2 ]
Hamilton, D. F. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
MacDonald, D. [1 ,2 ]
Howie, C. R. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Royal Infirm Edinburgh NHS Trust, Edinburgh Orthopaed, Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland
[2] Univ Edinburgh, Dept Orthopaed, Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland
[3] Edinburgh Napier Univ, Sch Hlth & Social Care, Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland
关键词
OXFORD HIP; VALIDATION; SATISFACTION; REPLACEMENT; AWARENESS; POINT;
D O I
10.1302/0301-620X.103B5.BJJ-2020-0396.R1
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Aims 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). Methods 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 sati sfied are you with your operated knee?" Their response was recorded a s: 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 declarin g 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. Results Using satisfaction as the anchor question, the MCID for the FJS was 16.6 ( 95% confidence interval (CIs) 8.9 to 24.3; p < 0.001) and when adjusting for confounding this decreased to 13.7 points (95% CI 4.8 to 22.5; p < 0.001). The MIC for the FJS for a cohort of patients was 17.7 points and for an individual patient was 10 points. The MDC90 for the FGS was 12 points; where 90% of patients scoring more than this will have experienced a real change that is beyond measurement error. The PASS was de fined as 22 points or more in the postoperative FJS. Conclusion The estimates for MCID and MIC can be used to assess whether there is clinical difference between two groups and whether a cohort/patient has had a meaningful change in their FJS, respectively. The MDC90 of 12 points suggests a value lower than this may fall within measurement error. A postoperative FJS of 22 or more was predictive of achieving PASS.
引用
收藏
页码:846 / 854
页数:9
相关论文
共 34 条
[1]   Determining the Validity, Reliability, and Utility of the Forgotten Joint Score: A Systematic Review [J].
Adriani, Marco ;
Malahias, Michael-Alexander ;
Gu, Alex ;
Kahlenberg, Cynthia A. ;
Ast, Michael P. ;
Sculco, Peter K. .
JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2020, 35 (04) :1137-1144
[2]   World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects [J].
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2013, 310 (20) :2191-2194
[3]  
[Anonymous], GOOD PRACTICE RES
[4]   Validation of the German Forgotten Joint Score (G-FJS']JS) according to the COSMIN checklist: does a reduction in joint awareness indicate clinical improvement after arthroplasty of the knee? [J].
Baumann, Florian ;
Ernstberger, Toni ;
Loibl, Markus ;
Zeman, Florian ;
Nerlich, Michael ;
Tibesku, Carsten .
ARCHIVES OF ORTHOPAEDIC AND TRAUMA SURGERY, 2016, 136 (02) :257-264
[5]   Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery [J].
Beard, David J. ;
Harris, Kristina ;
Dawson, Jill ;
Doll, Helen ;
Murray, David W. ;
Carr, Andrew J. ;
Price, Andrew J. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2015, 68 (01) :73-79
[6]   The "Forgotten Joint" as the Ultimate Goal in Joint Arthroplasty Validation of a New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure [J].
Behrend, Henrik ;
Giesinger, Karlmeinrad ;
Giesinger, Johannes M. ;
Kuster, Markus S. .
JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2012, 27 (03) :430-436
[7]   EuroQol: The current state of play [J].
Brooks, R .
HEALTH POLICY, 1996, 37 (01) :53-72
[8]   What is the optimal time point to assess patient-reported recovery after hip and knee replacement? a systematic review and analysis of routinely reported outcome data from the English patient-reported outcome measures programme [J].
Browne, John Patrick ;
Bastaki, Hamad ;
Dawson, Jill .
HEALTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE OUTCOMES, 2013, 11
[9]   One-year Oxford knee scores should be used in preference to 6-month scores when assessing the outcome of total knee arthroplasty [J].
Clement, N. D. ;
Ng, N. ;
MacDonald, D. ;
Scott, C. E. H. ;
Howie, C. R. .
KNEE SURGERY & RELATED RESEARCH, 2020, 32 (01)
[10]   Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty has a greater early functional outcome when compared to manual total knee arthroplasty for isolated medial compartment arthritis [J].
Clement, N. D. ;
Bell, A. ;
Simpson, P. ;
Macpherson, G. ;
Patton, J. T. ;
Hamilton, D. F. .
BONE & JOINT RESEARCH, 2020, 9 (01) :15-22