2,581
Views
54
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Minimal important change values for the Oxford Knee Score and the Forgotten Joint Score at 1 year after total knee replacement

, , , , &

  • Beard D J, Harris K, Dawson J, Doll H, Murray D W, Carr A J, Price A J. Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68(1): 73–9.
  • Behrend H, Giesinger K, Giesinger J M, Kuster M S. The “forgotten joint” as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty: validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27(3): 430–6.e1.
  • Clement N D, MacDonald D, Simpson A H. The minimal clinically important difference in the Oxford knee score and Short Form 12 score after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surgery, Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 2014; 22(8): 1933–9.
  • Cook J A, Hislop J, Altman D G, Fayers P, Briggs A H, Ramsay C R, Norrie J D, Harvey I M, Buckley B, Fergusson D, Ford I, Vale L D. Specifying the target difference in the primary outcome for a randomised controlled trial: guidance for researchers. Trials 2015; 16(1): 12.
  • Crosby R D, Kolotkin R L, Williams G R. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56(5): 395–407.
  • FDA, HHS. Patient-report outcome measures: Guidance for industry use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Silver Spring, MD: FDA; 2009.
  • Giesinger K, Hamilton D F, Jost B, Holzner B, Giesinger J M. Comparative responsiveness of outcome measures for total knee arthroplasty. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2014; 22(2): 184–9.
  • Guyatt G H, Norman G R, Juniper E F, Griffith LE . A critical look at transition ratings. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55(9): 900–8.
  • Hamilton D F, Loth F L, Giesinger J M, Giesinger K, MacDonald D J, Patton J T, Simpson A H, Howie C R. Validation of the English language Forgotten Joint Score-12 as an outcome measure for total hip and knee arthroplasty in a British population. Bone Joint J 2017; 99-B(2): 218–24.
  • Harris K, Dawson J, Gibbons E, Lim C, Beard D, Fitzpatrick R, Price A. Systematic review of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures used in patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty. Patient Relat Outcome Meas 2016; 7: 101–8.
  • Ingelsrud L H, Terwee C B, Terluin B, Granan L-P, Engebretsen L, Mills K A G, Roos E M. Meaningful change scores in the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score in patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2018; 46(5): 1120–8.
  • Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt G H. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10(4): 407–15.
  • King M T. A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2011; 11(2): 171–84.
  • McLeod L D, Coon C D, Martin S A, Fehnel S E, Hays R D. Interpreting patient-reported outcome results: US FDA guidance and emerging methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2011; 11(2): 163–9.
  • Murray D W, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard D J, Carr A J, Dawson J. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007; 89: 1010-14.
  • Odgaard A, Emmeluth C, Schrøder H, Kappel A, Lamberg A, Troelsen A, Pedersen A B, Kyndesen S. Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register Annual Report, 2016. Copenhagen; 2016.
  • Rolfson O, Eresian Chenok K, Bohm E, Lübbeke A, Denissen G, Dunn J, Lyman S, Franklin P, Dunbar M, Overgaard S, Garellick G, Dawson J. Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries: Report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries, Part I: Overview and rationale for patient-reported outcome measures. Acta Orthop 2016; 87(362): 3–8.
  • Schwartz C E, Powell V E, Rapkin B D. When global rating of change contradicts observed change: examining appraisal processes underlying paradoxical responses over time. Qual Life Res 2017; 26(4): 847–57.
  • Terluin B, Eekhout I, Terwee C B, de Vet H C. Minimal important change (MIC) based on a predictive modeling approach was more precise than MIC based on ROC analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68: 1388–96.
  • Terluin B, Eekhout I, Terwee C B. The anchor-based minimal important change, based on receiver operating characteristic analysis or predictive modeling, may need to be adjusted for the proportion of improved patients. J Clin Epidemiol 2017; 83: 90–100.
  • Terwee C B, Roorda L D, Dekker J, Bierma-Zeinstra S M, Peat G, Jordan K P, Croft P, de Vet H C W. Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63(5): 524–34.
  • Thienpont E, Vanden Berghe A, Schwab P E, Forthomme J P, Cornu O. Joint awareness in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee evaluated with the ‘Forgotten Joint’ Score before and after joint replacement. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24(10): 3346–51.
  • Thomsen M G, Latifi R, Kallemose T, Barfod K W, Husted H, Troelsen A. Good validity and reliability of the forgotten joint score in evaluating the outcome of total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2016; 87(3): 280–5.