The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis, Lequesne Algofunctional index, Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale-short form, and Visual Analogue Scale in patients with knee osteoarthritis: responsiveness and minimal clinically important differences

References

• Brouwer RW, Huizinga MR, Duivenvoorden T, et al. Osteotomy for treating knee osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(12):CD004019.
   Google Scholar
• Mehdinasab S, Haddadpoor A, Sarrafan N, et al. Prevalence and evaluation of risk factors in primary knee osteoarthritis. Sci Med J. 2010;9(2):135–141.
   Google Scholar
• Salaffi F, Piva S, Barreca C, et al. Validation of an Italian version of the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales 2 (ITALIAN-AIMS2) for patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Gonarthrosis and Quality of Life Assessment (GOQOLA) Study Group. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2000;39(7):720–727.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tüzün E, Eker L, Aytar A, et al. Acceptability, reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Turkish version of WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2005;13(1):28–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Escobar A, Quintana J, Bilbao A, et al. Validation of the Spanish version of the WOMAC questionnaire for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Clin Rheumatol. 2002;21(6):466–471.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ganesh S, Mohanty P, Das SP, et al. Multidisciplinary management of knee osteoarthritis using the international classification of functioning, disability and health. DCID. 2016;26(4):155–169.
   Google Scholar
• Kiadaliri AA, Lohmander LS, Moradi-Lakeh M, et al. High and rising burden of hip and knee osteoarthritis in the Nordic region, 1990–2015: findings from the global burden of disease study 2015. Acta Orthop. 2018;89(2):177–183.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, et al. 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. J Rheumatol. 1988;15(12):1833–1840.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lequesne M, editor. Indices of severity and disease activity for osteoarthritis. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1991;20:48–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guillemin F, Coste J, Pouchot J, et al. The AIMS2‐SF. A short form of the arthritis impact measurement scales 2. Arthritis Rheum. 1997;40(7):1267–1274.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Askary-Ashtiani AR, Javad Mousavi S, Montazeri A, et al. Cultural adaptation and validation of the Persian version of the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales 2-Short Form in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31(25):2081–2087.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nadrian H, Moghimi N, Nadrian E, et al. Validity and reliability of the Persian versions of WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index and Lequesne Algofunctional Index. Clin Rheumatol. 2012;31(7):1097–1102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosemann T, Korner T, Wensing M, et al. Evaluation and cultural adaptation of a German version of the AIMS2-SF questionnaire (German AIMS2-SF). Rheumatology (Oxford). 2005;44(9):1190–1195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Askary-Ashtiani AR, Mousavi SJ, Parnianpour M, et al. Translation and validation of the Persian version of the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales 2-Short Form (AIMS2-SF) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2009;28(5):521–527.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cleland JA, Whitman JM, Houser JL, et al. Psychometric properties of selected tests in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J. 2012;12(10):921–931.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, et al. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(5):459–468.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL. Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Phys Ther. 1996;76(10):1109–1123.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zelle BA, Herzka AS, Harner CD, et al. Evaluation of clinical outcomes in anterior cruciate ligament surgery. Oper Tech Orthop. 2005;15(1):76–84.
   Google Scholar
• Ebrahimzadeh MH, Makhmalbaf H, Birjandinejad A, et al. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) in persian speaking patients with knee osteoarthritis. Archiv Bone Joint Surg. 2014;2(1):57.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McClinton SM, Cobian DG, Heiderscheit BC. Physical therapist management of anterior knee pain. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2020;13(6):776–787.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faucher M, Poiraudeau S, Lefevre-Colau M, et al. Algo-functional assessment of knee osteoarthritis: comparison of the test-retest reliability and construct validity of the WOMAC and Lequesne indexes. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2002;10(8):602–610.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xie F, Thumboo J, Lo N-N, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of Singapore English and Chinese versions of the Lequesne Algofunctional Index of knee in Asians with knee osteoarthritis in Singapore. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2007;15(1):19–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avery VR. Comparing the visual analog scale and verbally administered numeric rating scale in traumatic versus non-traumatic pain in a community hospital emergency center [master's thesis]. University of Toledo; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Greco NJ, Anderson AF, Mann BJ, et al. 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. 2010;38(5):891–902.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deyo RA, Centor RM. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis. 1986;39(11):897–906.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lehman LA, Velozo CA. Ability to detect change in patient function: responsiveness designs and methods of calculation. J Hand Ther. 2010;23(4):361–371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Theiler R, Sangha O, Schaeren S, et al. Superior responsiveness of the pain and function sections of the Western Ontario and McMaster universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) as compared to the Lequesne-Algofunctional index in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 1999;7(6):515–519.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taal E, Rasker JJ, Riemsma R. Sensitivity to change of AIMS2 and AIMS2-SF components in comparison to M-HAQ and VAS-pain. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63(12):1655–1658.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamper SJ, Maher CG, Mackay G. Global rating of change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. J Man Manip Ther. 2009;17(3):163–170.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Stucki G. Smallest detectable and minimal clinically important differences of rehabilitation intervention with their implications for required sample sizes using WOMAC and SF‐36 quality of life measurement instruments in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities. Arthritis Care Res. 2001;45(4):384–391.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halme AS, Fritel X, Benedetti A, et al. Implications of the minimal clinically important difference for health-related quality-of-life outcomes: a comparison of sample size requirements for an incontinence treatment trial. Value Health. 2015;18(2):292–298.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar