Minimal detectable change for mobility and patient-reported tools in people with osteoarthritis awaiting arthroplasty

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Rajat Mittal¹  Gihan Kamalasena³  Ian A Harris²  Danella Hackett⁴  Edward Davidson⁵  Andrew Hayen²  Justine M Naylor² 

[1]School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

[2]Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research, Sydney, Australia

[3]Orthopaedic Department, Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, Australia

[4]Physiotherapy Department, Fairfield Hospital, Sydney, Australia

[5]Physiotherapy Department, Nepean Hospital, Sydney, Australia

关键词: Timed mobility tests;    Patient-reported outcome measures;    Clinimetrics;    Arthroplasty;    Osteoarthritis;   

Others  :  1122370
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-15-235

 received in 2014-03-28, accepted in 2014-07-08,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Thoughtful use of assessment tools to monitor disease requires an understanding of clinimetric properties. These properties are often under-reported and, thus, potentially overlooked in the clinic. This study aimed to determine the minimal detectable change (MDC) and coefficient of variation per cent (CV%) for tools commonly used to assess the symptomatic and functional severity of knee and hip osteoarthritis.

Methods

We performed a test-retest study on 136 people awaiting knee or hip arthroplasty at one of two hospitals. The MDC₉₅ (the range over which the difference [change] for 95% of patients is expected to lie) and the coefficient of variation per cent (CV%) for the visual analogue scale (VAS) for joint pain, the six-minute walk test (6MWT), the timed up-and-go (TUG) test, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) subscales were calculated.

Results

Knee cohort (n = 75) - The MDC₉₅ and CV% values were as follows: VAS 2.8 cm, 15%; 6MWT 79 m, 8%; TUG +/-36.7%, 13%; KOOS pain 20.2, 19%; KOOS symptoms 24.1, 22%; KOOS activities of daily living 20.8, 17%; KOOS quality of life 26.6, 44. Hip cohort (n = 61) - The MDC₉₅ and CV% values were as follows: VAS 3.3 cm, 17%; 6MWT 81.5 m, 9%; TUG +/-44.6%, 16%; HOOS pain 21.6, 22%; HOOS symptoms 22.7, 19%; HOOS activities of daily living 17.7, 17%; HOOS quality of life 24.4, 43%.

Conclusions

Distinguishing real change from error is difficult in people with severe osteoarthritis. The 6MWT demonstrates the smallest measurement error amongst a range of tools commonly used to assess disease severity, thus, has the capacity to detect the smallest real change above measurement error in everyday clinical practice.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Naylor et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Peat G, Porcheret M, Bedson J, Ward AM: Monitoring in osteoarthritis. In Evidence-Based Medical Monitoring: From Principles to Practice. Edited by Glasziou P, Aronson J, Irwig L. UK: Blackwell Publishing; 2008:335-356.
• [2]Allen KD: The value of measuring variability in osteoarthritis pain. J Rheumatol 2007, 34:2132-2133.
• [3]Allen KD, Oddone EZ, Coffman CJ, Datta SK, Juntilla KA, Lindquist JH, Walker TA, Weinberger M, Bosworth HB: Telephone-based self management of osteoarthritis: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2010, 153:570-579.
• [4]de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM: When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epi 2006, 59:1033-1039.
• [5]Steffen T, Seney M: Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change on balance and ambulation tests, the 36-item short-form health survey, and the unified Parkinson disease rating scale in people with parkinsonism. Phys Ther 2008, 88:733-746.
• [6]Donoghue D, Stokes EK: How much change is true change? The minimum detectable change of the berg balance scale in elderly people. J Rehabil Med 2009, 41:343-346.
• [7]Stratford PW, Riddle DL: When minimal detectable change exceeds a diagnostic test-based threshold change value for an outcome measure: resolving the conflict. Phys Ther 2012, 92:1338-1347.
• [8]Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC: Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007, 60:34-42.
• [9]Van Kampen DA, Willems WJ, van Beers LWAH, Castelein RM, Scholtes VAB, Terwee CB: Determination and comparison of the smallest detectable change (SDC) and the minimal important change (MIC) of four-shoulder patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS). J Ortho Surg Res 2013, 8:40. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]Carr A: Problems in measuring or interpreting change in patient outcomes. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2002, 10:503-505.
• [11]Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Knol DL, De Boer MR, De Vet HC: Linking measurement error to minimal important change of patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2009, 62:1062-1067.
• [12]Alviar MJ, Olver J, Brand C, Tropea J, Hale P, Pirpiris M, Khan F: Do patient-reported outcome measures in hip and knee arthroplasty rehabilitation have robust measurement attributes? A systematic review. J Rehabil Med 2011, 43:572-583.
• [13]Collins NJ, Misra D, Felson DT, Crossley KM, Roos EM: Measures of knee function. Arthritis Care Res 2011, 63(S11):S208-S228.
• [14]Dobson F, Hinman RS, Hall M, Terwee CB, Roos EM, Bennell KL: Measurement properties of performance-based measures to asses physical function in hip and knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2012, 20:1548-1562.
• [15]Thorborg K, Roos EM, Bartels EM, Petersen J, Hölmich P: Validity, reliability and responsiveness of patient-reported outcome questionnaires when assessing hip and groin disability: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med 2010, 44:1186-1196.
• [16]Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Steultjens MPM, Dekker J: Performance-based methods for measuring the physical function of patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a systematic review of measurement properties. Rheumatology 2006, 45:890-902.
• [17]Tubach F, Ravaud P, Baron G, Falissard B, Logeart I, Bellamy N, Bombardier C, Felson D, Hochberg M, van der Heijde D, Dougados M: Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement. Ann Rheum Dis 2005, 64:29-33.
• [18]Bellamy N, Carette S, Ford PM, Kean WF, le Riche NG, Lussier A, Wells GA, Campbell J: Osteoarthritis antirheumatic drug trials. III. Setting the delta for clinical trials— results of a consensus development (Delphi) exercise. J Rheumatol 1992, 19:451-457.
• [19]Podsiadlo D, Richardson S: The timed ‘Up and Go’ Test: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Amer Geriatric Soc 1991, 39:142-148.
• [20]Troosters T, Gosselink R, Decramer M: Six minute walking distance in healthy elderly subjects. Eur Respir J 1999, 14:270-274.
• [21]Roos EM, Toksvig-Larsen S: Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) – validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003, 1:17. BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]Nilsdotter AK, Lohmander S, Klässbo M, Roos EM: Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS) – validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2003, 4:10. BioMed Central Full Text
• [23]OACCP ACI Musculoskeletal Network. Osteoarthritis Chronic Care Program Model of Care. Agency for Clinical Innovation 2012. http://www.aci.health.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/165305/Osteoarthritis-Chronic-Care-Program-Mode-of-Care.pdf#zoom=100 webcite
• [24]Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986, 1(8476):307-310.
• [25]Bland JM, Altman DG: Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999, 8:135-160.
• [26]Bennell K, Dobson F, Hinman R: Measures of Physical Performance Assessments Self-Paced Walk Test (SPWT), Stair Climb Test (SCT), Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), Chair Stand Test (CST), Timed Up & Go (TUG), Sock Test, Lift and Carry Test (LCT), and Car Task. Arthritis Care Res 2011, 63:S350-S370.
• [27]Gandhi R, Tsvetkov D, Davey JR, Syed KA, Mahomed NN: Relationship between self-reported and performance-based tests in a hip and knee joint replacement population. Clin Rheumatol 2009, 28:253-257.
• [28]Kennedy DM, Stratford PW, Wessel J, Gollish JD, Penney D: Assessing stability and change of four performance measures: a longitudinal study evaluating outcome following total hip and knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2005, 6:3. BioMed Central Full Text
• [29]Steffen TM, Hacker TA, Mollinger L: Age- and gender-related test performance in community-dwelling elderly people: six-minute walk test, berg balance scale, timed up & go test, and gait speeds. Phys Ther 2002, 82:128-137.
• [30]Roos EM, Lohmander LS: The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003, 1:64. BioMed Central Full Text
• [31]Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard DJ, Carr AJ, Dawson J: The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007, 89-B:1010-1014.
• [32]Naylor JM, Kamalasena G, Hayen G, Harris IA, Adie S: Can the oxford scores be used to monitor symptomatic progression of patients awaiting knee or hip arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty 2013, 28:1454-1458.
• [33]Altman DG: Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman & Hall; 1991.
• [34]Shrout PE, Fleiss JL: Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979, 86:420-428.
• [35]Stratford PW, Goldsmith CH: Use of the standard error as a reliability index of interest: an applied example using elbow flexor strength data. Phys Ther 1997, 77:745-750.
• [36]Atkinson G, Nevill AM: Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med 1998, 26(4):217-238.
• [37]Singh J, Sloan JA, Johanson NA: Challenges with health-related quality of life assessment in arthroplasty patients: problems and solutions. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2010, 18(2):72-82.
• [38]Stratford PW, Spadoni G: The reliability, consistency, and clinical application of a numeric pain rating scale. Physiother Can 2001, 53:88-91.
• [39]Ornetti P, Parratte S, Gossec L, Tavernier C, Argenson JN, Roos EM, Guillemin F, Maillefert JF: Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the French version of the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) in hip osteoarthritis patients. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2010, 18:522-529.
• [40]Impellizzeri FM, Mannion AF, Leunig M, Bizzini M, Naal FD: Comparison of the reliability, responsiveness, and construct validity of 4 different questionnaires for evaluating outcomes after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2011, 26:861-869.
• [41]Ko V, Naylor JM, Harris IA, Crosbie J, Yeo AET, Mittal R: Is 1-to-1 therapy superior to group- or home-based therapy after knee arthroplasty? A randomized, superiority trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013, 95(21):1942-1949.
• [42]Hutchings A, Calloway M, Choy E, Hooper M, Hunter DJ, Jordan JM, Zhang Y, Baser O, Long S, Palmer L: The Longitudinal Examination of Arthritis Pain (LEAP) Study: relationships between weekly fluctuations in patient-rated joint pain and other health outcomes. J Rheumatol 2007, 34:2291-2300.