Knee instruments and rating scales designed to measure outcomes

被引:47
作者
Rodriguez-Merchan E.C. [1 ]
机构
[1] School of Medicine, Autonomous University, Madrid
关键词
Instruments; Knee; Outcomes; Rating scales;
D O I
10.1007/s10195-011-0177-4
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
In this article, the knee instruments and rating scales that are designed to measure outcomes are revised. Although the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form can be used as a general knee measure, no instrument is currently universally applicable across the spectrum of knee disorders and patient groups. Clinicians and researchers looking to use a patient-based score for measurement of outcomes must consider the specific patient population in which it has been evaluated. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index is recommended for the evaluation of treatment effect in persons with osteoarthritis (OA). This is a generic health status questionnaire that contains 36 items, is widely used, and easy to complete. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) questionnaire evaluates the functional status and quality of life (QoL) of patients with any type of knee injury who are at increased risk of developing OA; i.e., patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, meniscus injury, or chondral injury. So far, the KOOS questionnaire has been validated for several orthopedic procedures such as total knee arthroplasty, ACL reconstruction, and meniscectomy. The utilization of QoL questionnaires is crucial to the adequate assessment of a number of orthopedic procedures of the knee. The questionnaires are generally well accepted by the patients and open up new perspectives in the analysis of prognostic factors for optimal QoL of patients undergoing knee surgery. © 2012 The Author(s).
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 6
页数:5
相关论文
共 40 条
[1]  
De Groot I.B., Favejee M.M., Reijman M., Jan V., Terwee C.B., The Dutch version of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score: A validation study, Health Qual Life Outcomes, 6, pp. 16-22, (2008)
[2]  
VanderZee K.I., Sanderman R., Heyink J., A comparison of two multidimensional measures of health status: The Nottingham Health Profile and the RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0, Quality of Life Research, 5, 1, pp. 165-174, (1996)
[3]  
Bellamy N., Buchanan W.W., A preliminary evaluation of the dimensionality and clinical importance of pain and disability in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee, Clin Rheumatol, 5, pp. 231-241, (1086)
[4]  
Bellamy N., Buchanan W.W., Goldsmith C.H., Campbell J., Stitt L.W., Validation study of WOMAC: A health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee, Journal of Rheumatology, 15, 12, pp. 1833-1840, (1988)
[5]  
Hochberg M.C., Altman R.D., Brandt K.D., Moskowitz R.W., Design and conduct of clinical trials in osteoarthritis: Preliminary recommendations from a Task Force of the Osteoarthritis Research Society, Journal of Rheumatology, 24, 4, pp. 792-794, (1997)
[6]  
Roos E.M., Lohmander L.S., The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): From joint injury to osteoarthritis, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1, (2003)
[7]  
Moffet H., Collet J.-P., Shapiro S.H., Paradis G., Marquis F., Roy L., Effectiveness of intensive rehabilitation on functional ability and quality of life after first total knee arthroplasty: A single-blind randomized controlled trial, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85, 4, pp. 546-556, (2004)
[8]  
Kreibich D.N., Vaz M., Bourne R.B., Rorabeck C.H., Kim P., Hardie R., Kramer J., Kirkley A., What is the best way of assessing outcome after total knee replacement?, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 331, pp. 221-225, (1996)
[9]  
Parent E., Moffet H., Comparative responsiveness of locomotor tests and questionnaires used to follow-early recovery after total knee arthroplasty, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83, 1, pp. 70-80, (2002)
[10]  
Wright J.G., Young N.L., A comparison of different indices of responsiveness, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 50, 3, pp. 239-246, (1997)