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

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 10/2017

01-10-2017 | Knee

Validation of electronic administration of knee surveys among ACL-injured patients

Authors: Joseph Nguyen, Robert Marx, Chisa Hidaka, Sean Wilson, Stephen Lyman

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 10/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Knee-specific patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important tools in evaluating the effectiveness of sports medicine interventions. The PROMs were originally developed for paper administration, but electronic data capture technologies offer potential benefits such as increased efficiency and accuracy. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of touch screen versus paper administration using several common knee-specific and general health surveys.

Methods

Agreement between scores was compared for knee-specific PROMs administered on paper versus computer; paper versus tablet; computer versus tablet in 60 patients per group undergoing ACL reconstruction. Surveys were given at pre-operative assessment and between 1 and 7 days later. Weighted kappa statistic (κ) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to test agreement between the two modalities in: IKDC Subjective Knee Form, Marx Activity Scale, Tegner Activity Level Scale, and Lysholm Knee Scale. SF-12 Physical and Mental Component Summary scores were also assessed.

Results

Response rate was over 90 %. Mean age was 29.6 ± 10.9 years, with patients in the paper–computer cohort being 4 years older than in the other groups. Agreement was substantial or better for all PROMs collected: IKDC Subjective (ICC: 0.79); Marx (ICC: 0.70); Lysholm (ICC: 0.65); and Tegner (κ = 0.67). Agreement for the SF-12 PCS (ICC: 0.77) and MCS (ICC: 0.73) was also found to have substantial agreement.

Conclusion

In conclusion, touch screen-based PROMs are a valid capture method, providing reliable results relative to traditional paper survey administration. Digital methods of direct data capture may also foster multi-centre collaborations and allow for more accurate comparisons of outcomes between patient groups in clinical practice and orthopaedic research.

Level of evidence

II.
Literature
1.
2.
Bohu Y, Klouche S, Lefevre N, Webster K, Herman S (2015) Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the French version of the anterior cruciate ligament—return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI) scale. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(4):1192–1196CrossRefPubMed
3.
Briggs KK, Lysholm J, Tegner Y, Rodkey WG, Kocher MS, Steadman JR (2009) The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Lysholm score and Tegner activity scale for anterior cruciate ligament injuries of the knee: 25 years later. Am J Sports Med 37(5):890–897CrossRefPubMed
4.
Carini R, Hayek J, Kuh G, Kennedy J, Ouimet J (2003) College student responses to web and paper surveys: does mode matter? Res High Educ 44(1):1–19CrossRef
5.
Coons SJ, Gwaltney CJ, Hays RD et al (2009) Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health 12(4):419–429CrossRefPubMed
6.
Cox CL, Huston LJ, Dunn WR et al (2014) Are articular cartilage lesions and meniscus tears predictive of IKDC, KOOS, and Marx activity level outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction?: A 6-year multicenter cohort study. Am J Sports 42(5):1058–1067CrossRef
7.
Ekman A, Dickman PW, Klint A, Weiderpass E, Litton JE (2006) Feasibility of using web-based questionnaires in large population-based epidemiological studies. Eur J Epidemiol 21(2):103–111CrossRefPubMed
8.
Farr J, Verma N, Cole BJ (2013) Validation study of an electronic method of condensed outcomes tools reporting in orthopaedics. J Knee Surg 26(6):445–451CrossRefPubMed
9.
Fries JF, Cella D, Rose M, Krishnan E, Bruce B (2009) Progress in assessing physical function in arthritis: PROMIS short forms and computerized adaptive testing. J Rheumatol 36(9):2061–2066CrossRefPubMed
10.
Gordon M, Steiner M (2004) Orthopaedic knowledge update sports medicine 3. In: Garrick J (ed) Orthopedic knowledge update sports medicine. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Rosemont, p 450
11.
Gwaltney CJ, Shields AL, Shiffman S (2008) Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. Value Health 11(2):322–333CrossRefPubMed
12.
Hefti F, Müller W, Jakob RP, Stäubli HU (1993) Evaluation of knee ligament injuries with the IKDC form. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1(3–4):226–234CrossRefPubMed
13.
Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL et al (2001) Development and validation of the international knee documentation committee Subjective Knee Form. Am J Sport Med 29(5):600–613CrossRef
14.
Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMed
15.
Linder LA, Ameringer S, Erickson J, Macpherson CF, Stegenga K, Linder W (2013) Using an iPad in research with children and adolescents. J Spec Pediatr Nurs 18(2):158–164CrossRefPubMed
16.
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(3):150–154CrossRefPubMed
17.
Marsh JD, Bryant DM, Macdonald SJ, Naudie DDR (2014) Patients respond similarly to paper and electronic versions of the WOMAC and SF-12 following total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 29(4):670–673CrossRefPubMed
18.
19.
Marx RG, Stump TJ, Jones EC, Wickiewicz TL, Warren RF (2001) Development and evaluation of an activity rating scale for disorders of the knee. Am J Sport Med 29(2):213–218CrossRef
20.
Mayr A, Gefeller O, Prokosch H-U, Pirkl A, Fröhlich A, de Zwaan M (2012) Web-based data collection yielded an additional response bias–but had no direct effect on outcome scales. J Clin Epidemiol 65(9):970–977CrossRefPubMed
21.
Moses H, Matheson DHM, Dorsey ER, George BP, Sadoff D, Yoshimura S (2013) The anatomy of health care in the United States. JAMA 310(18):1947–1963CrossRefPubMed
22.
Saleh KJ, Radosevich DM, Kassim RA et al (2002) Comparison of commonly used orthopaedic outcome measures using palm-top computers and paper surveys. J Orthop Res 20(6):1146–1151CrossRefPubMed
23.
Sax L, Gilmartin S, Lee J, Hagedorn L (2008) Using web surveys to reach community college students: an analysis of response rates and response bias. Community Coll J Res Pract 32(9):712–729CrossRef
24.
Sharpe EE, Kendrick M, Strickland C, Dodd GD (2013) The Radiology Resident iPad Toolbox: an educational and clinical tool for radiology residents. J Am Coll Radiol 10(7):527–532CrossRefPubMed
25.
Spindler KP, Huston LJ, Wright RW et al (2011) The prognosis and predictors of sports function and activity at minimum 6 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a population cohort study. Am J Sports Med 39(2):348–359CrossRefPubMed
26.
Tegner Y, Lysholm J (1985) Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 198:43–49
27.
Touvier M, Méjean C, Kesse-Guyot E et al (2010) Comparison between web-based and paper versions of a self-administered anthropometric questionnaire. Eur J Epidemiol 25(5):287–296CrossRefPubMed
28.
Van den Berg MH, Overbeek A, van der Pal HJ et al (2011) Using web-based and paper-based questionnaires for collecting data on fertility issues among female childhood cancer survivors: differences in response characteristics. J Med Internet Res 13(3):e76CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Van Gelder MMHJ, Bretveld RW, Roeleveld N (2010) Web-based questionnaires: the future in epidemiology? Am J Epidemiol 172(11):1292–1298CrossRefPubMed
30.
van Meer BL, Meuffels DE, Vissers MM, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA, Verhaar JAN, Terwee CB, Reijman M (2013) Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score or International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form: which questionnaire is most useful to monitor patients with an anterior cruciate ligament rupture in the short term? Arthroscopy 29(4):701–715CrossRefPubMed
31.
Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller SD (1996) A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 34(3):220–233CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Validation of electronic administration of knee surveys among ACL-injured patients
Authors
Joseph Nguyen
Robert Marx
Chisa Hidaka
Sean Wilson
Stephen Lyman
Publication date
01-10-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 10/2017
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4189-8

Other articles of this Issue 10/2017

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 10/2017 Go to the issue

Letter to the Editor

Reply to the letter to the editor: shortening osteotomy of the proximal radius

Knee

MRI-based ACL graft maturity does not predict clinical and functional outcomes during the first year after ACL reconstruction

Sports Medicine

Prospective multifactorial analysis of preseason risk factors for shoulder and elbow injuries in high school baseball pitchers

Knee

Functional outcomes after patellar autologous osteochondral transplantation

Sports Medicine

Does platelet-rich plasma decrease time to return to sports in acute muscle tear? A randomized controlled trial

Editorial

“Back to the future”: a historical perspective on the role of extra-articular reconstruction