Top

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Published in:

01-12-2020 | Osteoarthrosis | Research article

Minimal important differences for the WOMAC osteoarthritis index and the Forgotten Joint Score-12 in total knee arthroplasty patients

Authors: N. Holtz, D. F. Hamilton, J. M. Giesinger, B. Jost, K. Giesinger

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2020

Abstract

Background

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an effective treatment for end-stage osteoarthritis. Patient reported-outcome measures (PROMs) capture the patients’ perception of the success of an intervention. The minimal important difference (MID) is an important characteristic of the PROM, which helps to interpret results. The aim of this study was to identify the MID for the Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) osteoarthritis index.

Methods

Data were collected in a prospective cohort study. Patients were asked to complete the FJS-12, WOMAC osteoarthritis index and transition items evaluating change over time to determine the MID. We employed an anchor-based methodology relating score change to the response categories of the transition items using both binary logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.

Results

Data from 199 patients were analysed. Mean age was 72.3 years, 58% were women. Employing binary logistic regression the MID for the FJS-12 was 10.8 points, for the WOMAC pain score 7.5 points and for the WOMAC function score 7.2 points. ROC analyses found a MID of 13.0 points for the FJS-12, 12.5 points for WOMAC pain and 14.7 points for WOMAC function.

Conclusion

We report MIDs for the FJS-12 and the WOMAC Pain and Function scales in a TKA patient cohort, which can be used to interpret meaningful differences in score. In line with previous research, we found more advanced statistical methods to result in smaller MID estimates for both scores.

Trial registration

Written consent for this study was obtained from all participants and ethical approval was granted by the local ethics committee (Ethikkommission St. Gallen; EKSG 14/973; Registered 03 July 2014; http://www.sg.ch/home/gesundheit/ethikkommission.html).

Clement ND, Macdonald D, Burnett R. Predicting patient satisfaction using the Oxford knee score: where do we draw the line? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133(5):689–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-013-1728-3.CrossRefPubMed

Behrend H, Giesinger K, Giesinger JM, Kuster MS. The & quot; forgotten joint" as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty: validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure. J Arthroplast. 2012;27(3):430–436.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2011.06.035.CrossRef

Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. 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):1833–40 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3068365. Accessed July 7, 2018.PubMed

Paradowski PT, Roos EM. Knee outcome scales: basic concepts, review of methods, cross-cultural and linguistic adaptation. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil. 2004;6(4):393–405 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17675966. Accessed July 7, 2018.PubMed

Collins NJ, Roos EM. Patient-reported outcomes for total hip and knee arthroplasty: commonly used instruments and attributes of a & quot; good & quot; measure. Clin Geriatr Med. 2012;28(3):367–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cger.2012.05.007.CrossRefPubMed

Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the knee society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;248:13–4 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2805470. Accessed July 7, 2018.

Roos EM, Roos HP, Ekdahl C, Lohmander LS. Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS)--validation of a Swedish version. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 1998;8(6):439–48 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9863983. Accessed July 7, 2018.CrossRef

Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34(3):220–33 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8628042. Accessed July 7, 2018.CrossRef

Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473–83 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1593914. Accessed July 7, 2018.CrossRef

10.

Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 1998;80(1):63–9 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9460955. Accessed July 7, 2018.CrossRef

11.

Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10(4):407–15 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2691207. Accessed January 2, 2019.CrossRef

12.

King MT, Dueck AC, Revicki DA. Can methods developed for interpreting group-level patient-reported outcome data be applied to individual patient management? Med Care. 2019;57(Suppl 5 Suppl 1):S38–45. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000001111.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

McGlothlin AE, Lewis RJ. Minimal clinically important difference: defining what really matters to patients. JAMA. 2014;312(13):1342–3. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.13128.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Terluin B, Eekhout I, Terwee CB, de Vet HCW. Minimal important change (MIC) based on a predictive modeling approach was more precise than MIC based on ROC analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(12):1388–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.03.015.CrossRef

15.

Escobar A, García Pérez L, Herrera-Espiñeira C, et al. Total knee replacement; minimal clinically important differences and responders. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2013;21(12):2006–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2013.09.009.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Knol DL, De Boer MR, De Vet HCW. Linking measurement error to minimal important change of patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1062–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2008.10.011.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Giesinger K, Hamilton DF, Jost B, Holzner B, Giesinger JM. Comparative responsiveness of outcome measures for total knee arthroplasty. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2014;22(2):184–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2013.11.001.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Wheatley B, Nappo K, Fisch J, Rego L, Shay M, Cannova C. Early outcomes of patient-specific posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty implants. J Orthop. 2019;16(1):14–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2018.11.003.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Giesinger JM, Behrend H, Hamilton DF, Kuster MS, Giesinger K. Normative values for the forgotten joint Score-12 for the US general population. J Arthroplast. 2018;34(4):650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.12.011.CrossRef

20.

Edelstein A, Bhatt S, Wright-Chisem J, Sullivan R, Beal M, Manning D. The effect of implant design on sagittal plane stability: a randomized trial of medial- versus posterior-stabilized Total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2019;33(05):452. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1678524.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Ingelsrud LH, Roos EM, Terluin B, Gromov K, Husted H, Troelsen A. Minimal important change values for the Oxford knee score and the forgotten joint score at 1 year after total knee replacement. Acta Orthop. 2018;89(5):541–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2018.1480739.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012.CrossRef

23.

Thienpont E, Opsomer G, et al. AK-TJ of, 2014 undefined. Joint awareness in different types of knee arthroplasty evaluated with the forgotten joint score: Elsevier. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883540313003288. Accessed July 7, 2018.

24.

Hamilton DF, Loth FL, Giesinger JM, et al. 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. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B2.BJJ-2016-0606.R1.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Matsumoto M, Baba T, Homma Y, et al. Validation study of the forgotten joint Score-12 as a universal patient-reported outcome measure. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2015;25(7):1141–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-015-1660-z.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Baumann F, Ernstberger T, Loibl M, Zeman F, Nerlich M, Tibesku C. Validation of the German forgotten joint score (G-FJS) according to the COSMIN checklist: does a reduction in joint awareness indicate clinical improvement after arthroplasty of the knee? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016;136(2):257–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2372-x.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Hamilton DF, Giesinger JM, MacDonald DJ, Simpson AHRW, Howie CR, Giesinger K. Responsiveness and ceiling effects of the forgotten joint Score-12 following total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint Res. 2016;5(3):87–91. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.53.2000480.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Thomsen MG, Latifi R, Kallemose T, Barfod KW, 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. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2016.1156934.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Shadid MB, Vinken NS, Marting LN, Wolterbeek N. The Dutch version of the forgotten joint score: test-retesting reliability and validation. Acta Orthop Belg. 2016;82(1):112–8 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26984663. Accessed September 24, 2019.PubMed

30.

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 Rheum. 2001;45(4):384–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/1529-0131(200108)45:4<384::AID-ART352>3.0.CO;2-0.CrossRefPubMed

31.

King MT. A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11(2):171–84. https://doi.org/10.1586/erp.11.9.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Devji T, Guyatt GH, Lytvyn L, et al. Application of minimal important differences in degenerative knee disease outcomes: a systematic review and case study to inform BMJ rapid recommendations. BMJ Open. 2017;7(5):e015587. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015587.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Minimal important differences for the WOMAC osteoarthritis index and the Forgotten Joint Score-12 in total knee arthroplasty patients
Authors: N. Holtz
D. F. Hamilton
J. M. Giesinger
B. Jost
K. Giesinger
Publication date: 01-12-2020
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keywords: Osteoarthrosis
Osteoarthrosis
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03415-x

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Minimal important differences for the WOMAC osteoarthritis index and the Forgotten Joint Score-12 in total knee arthroplasty patients

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Digital anatomical study and clinical application of screw placement for quadrilateral plate fractures in the danger zone

Closed drainage versus non-drainage for single-level lumbar discectomy: a prospective randomized controlled study

Biomechanical comparison of tenodesis reconstruction for subtalar instability: a finite element analysis

Association between lumbar disc herniation and facet joint osteoarthritis

Low rates of all-cause revision in displaced subcapital femoral neck fractures treated with hip hemiarthroplasty - a retrospective review of 4516 patients from a single institute

Musculoskeletal pain in other body sites is associated with new-onset low back pain: a longitudinal study among survivors of the great East Japan earthquake