Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 8/2018

01-08-2018 | Knee

KNEES-ACL has superior responsiveness compared to the most commonly used patient-reported outcome measures for anterior cruciate ligament injury

Authors: Jonathan David Comins, Volkert Dirk Siersma, Martin Lind, Bent Wulff Jakobsen, Michael Rindom Krogsgaard

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 8/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

For clinical trials, it is essential that measures are sensitive to change. The aim of this study was to conduct a head-to-head comparison of responsiveness of four PROMs used to measure outcome after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The PROMs compared were the knee injury osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS), the international knee documentation committee subjective form (IKDC), the Lysholm score, and the knee numeric-entity evaluation score (KNEES-ACL). We hypothesized that KNEES-ACL would be more responsive than the other PROMs, as KNEES-ACL was created based on patient interviews and validated using Rasch analysis.

Methods

One-hundred and sixty-six consecutive adults completed the four PROMs before and 3, 6, and 12 months after ACL-reconstructive surgery. Responsiveness was calculated as Cohen’s Effect Size and Standardized Response Means. Bootstrapping was used to generate 95% confidence intervals for comparisons of responsiveness across PROMs. Repeated-measures ANOVA was also computed for each PROM.

Results

The largest effect sizes at 12 months were seen for KNEES-ACLSports-Behaviour (1.35, p < 0.001) and KNEES-ACLSports-Physical (1.19, p < 0.001), the smallest for KOOSADL (0.35, p < 0.001) and KOOSSymptoms (0.39, p < 0.001). IKDC and Lysholm lay between these with IKDC slightly more responsive. Head-to-head comparisons of similar subscales of KOOS and KNEES-ACL showed substantial differences in effect size in the domains of symptoms (0.69, p < 0.001), daily activities (0.31, p = 0.005), and Sports activity (0.63, p = 0.013) all in favour of KNEES-ACL.

Conclusion

These results demonstrate superior responsiveness for KNEES-ACL, which is the only PROM that has been constructed through exhaustive patient feedback and validated for patients with ACL deficiency using the most stringent psychometric methods (Rasch analysis). KNEES-ACL is the most precise and accurate PROM for patients with ACL injury and the most trustworthy instrument for clinicians and clinical researchers.

Level of evidence

Prospective cohort study, Level II.
Literature
1.
Brodersen J, Doward L, Thorsen H, McKenna S (2013) Writing Health-related items for Rasch models—patient reported outcome scales for health sciences: from medical paternalism to patient autonomy. In: Kreiner S, Christensen KB, Mesbah M (eds) Rasch models in health. Wiley, London, pp 281–298CrossRef
2.
Christensen KB, Kreiner S, Mesbah M (2013) Rasch models in Health. Wiley, London
3.
Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, New Jersey
4.
Comins J, Brodersen J, Krogsgaard M (2010) Treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tear. N Engl J Med 363:1871–1873CrossRefPubMed
5.
Comins J, Brodersen J, Krogsgaard M, Beyer N (2008) Rasch analysis of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): a statistical re-evaluation. Scand J Med Sci Sports 18:336–345CrossRefPubMed
6.
Comins JD, Krogsgaard MR, Brodersen J (2013) Development of the Knee Numeric-Entity Evaluation Score (KNEES-ACL): a condition-specific questionnaire. Scand J Med Sci Sports 23:e293-301PubMed
7.
Comins JD, Krogsgaard MR, Kreiner S, Brodersen J (2013) Dimensionality of the Knee Numeric-Entity Evaluation Score (KNEES-ACL): a condition-specific questionnaire. Scand J Med Sci Sports 23:e302-312
8.
9.
Doganay Erdogan B, Leung YY, Pohl C, Tennant A, Conaghan PG (2016) Minimal clinically important difference as applied in rheumatology: an OMERACT Rasch Working Group Systematic Review and Critique. J Rheumatol 43:194–202CrossRefPubMed
10.
Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1994) An Introduction to the Bootstrap. CRC Press, New York
11.
Frobell RB, Roos EM, Roos HP, Ranstam J, Lohmander LS (2010) A randomized trial of treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tears. N Engl J Med 363:331–342CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Frostick SP, Sinopidis C, Al MS, Gibson J, Kemp GJ, Richmond JC (2003) Arthroscopic capsular shrinkage of the shoulder for the treatment of patients with multidirectional instability: Minimum 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 19:227–233CrossRefPubMed
14.
Gandek B (2015) Measurement properties of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index: a systematic review. Arthritis Care Res 67:216–229CrossRef
15.
Gianotti SM, Marshall SW, Hume PA, Bunt L (2009) Incidence of anterior cruciate ligament injury and other knee ligament injuries: a national population-based study. J Sci Med Sport 12:622–627CrossRefPubMed
16.
Gillquist J, Hamberg P, Lysholm J (1982) Endoscopic partial and total meniscectomy. A comparative study with a short term follow up. Acta Orthop Scand 53:975–979CrossRefPubMed
17.
Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, Wyrwich KW, Norman GR, Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting G (2002) Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 77:371–383CrossRefPubMed
18.
Hambly K, Griva K (2010) IKDC or KOOS: which one captures symptoms and disabilities most important to patients who have undergone initial anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? Am J Sports Med 38:1395–1404CrossRefPubMed
19.
Hambly K, Griva K (2008) IKDC or KOOS? Which measures symptoms and disabilities most important to postoperative articular cartilage repair patients? Am J Sports Med 36:1695–1704CrossRefPubMed
20.
Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL, Harner CD, Kurosaka M, Neyret P et al (2001) Development and validation of the international knee documentation committee subjective knee form. Am J Sports Med 29:600–613CrossRefPubMed
21.
Irrgang JJ, Ho H, Harner CD, Fu FH (1998) Use of the International Knee Documentation Committee guidelines to assess outcome following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 6:107–114CrossRefPubMed
22.
23.
Kreiner S (2007) Validity and objectivity: Reflections on the role and nature of Rasch models. Nord Psychol 59:268–298CrossRef
24.
25.
26.
Latham NK, Mehta V, Nguyen AM, Jette AM, Olarsch S, Papanicolaou D et al (2008) Performance-based or self-report measures of physical function: which should be used in clinical trials of hip fracture patients? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 89:2146–2155CrossRefPubMed
27.
Liang MH (2000) Longitudinal construct validity: establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments. Med Care 38:II84-90CrossRefPubMed
28.
Liang MH, Lew RA, Stucki G, Fortin PR, Daltroy L (2002) Measuring clinically important changes with patient-oriented questionnaires. Med Care 40:II45-51PubMed
29.
Lysholm J, Gillquist J (1982) Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a Scoring Scale. Am J Sports Med 10:150–154CrossRefPubMed
30.
McDonough CM, Stoiber E, Tomek IM, Ni P, Kim YJ, Tian F et al (2016) Sensitivity to change of a computer adaptive testing instrument for outcome measurement after hip and knee arthroplasty and periacetabular osteotomy. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 46:756–767CrossRefPubMed
31.
Pardasaney PK, Latham NK, Jette AM, Wagenaar RC, Ni P, Slavin MD et al (2012) Sensitivity to change and responsiveness of four balance measures for community-dwelling older adults. Phys Ther 92:388–397CrossRefPubMed
32.
Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD (1998) Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)--development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 28:88–96CrossRefPubMed
33.
Sihvonen R, Englund M, Turkiewicz A, Jarvinen TL (2016) Mechanical symptoms as an indication for knee arthroscopy in patients with degenerative meniscus tear: a prospective cohort study. Osteoarthr Cartilage 24:1367–1375CrossRef
34.
Sihvonen R, Englund M, Turkiewicz A, Jarvinen TL, Finnish Degenerative Meniscal Lesion Study G (2016) Mechanical symptoms and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy in patients with degenerative meniscus tear: a secondary analysis of a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 164:449–455CrossRefPubMed
35.
36.
Smith HJ, Richardson JB, Tennant A (2009) Modification and validation of the Lysholm Knee Scale to assess articular cartilage damage. Osteoarthr Cartil 17:53–58CrossRefPubMed
37.
Wallace D, Duncan PW, Lai SM (2002) Comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the motor component of the Functional Independence Measure in stroke: the impact of using different methods for measuring responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 55:922–928CrossRefPubMed
38.
Wiebe S, Guyatt G, Weaver B, Matijevic S, Sidwell C (2003) Comparative responsiveness of generic and specific quality-of-life instruments. J Clin Epidemiol 56:52–60CrossRefPubMed
39.
Wiering B, de Boer D, Delnoij D (2017) Patient involvement in the development of patient-reported outcome measures: a scoping review. Health Expect 20:11–23CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
KNEES-ACL has superior responsiveness compared to the most commonly used patient-reported outcome measures for anterior cruciate ligament injury
Authors
Jonathan David Comins
Volkert Dirk Siersma
Martin Lind
Bent Wulff Jakobsen
Michael Rindom Krogsgaard
Publication date
01-08-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 8/2018
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-4961-z

Other articles of this Issue 8/2018

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 8/2018 Go to the issue

Knee

Translation, validation, and cross-cultural adaption of the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) into German

Letter to the Editor

A new technique in double‑bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with implant‑free tibial fixation: letter to the editor

Knee

Strength and functional symmetry is associated with post-operative rehabilitation in patients following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Knee

Similar failure rate in immediate post-operative weight bearing versus protected weight bearing following meniscal repair on peripheral, vertical meniscal tears

Shoulder

Lack of level I evidence on how to prevent infection after elective shoulder surgery

Editorial

In memoriam Hans Heinrich Pässler 1940–2018