Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) - validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement

Ewa M Roos, Sören Toksvig-Larsen, Ewa M Roos, Sören Toksvig-Larsen

Abstract

Background: The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) is an extension of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthrtis Index (WOMAC), the most commonly used outcome instrument for assessment of patient-relevant treatment effects in osteoarthritis. KOOS was developed for younger and/or more active patients with knee injury and knee osteoarthritis and has in previous studies on these groups been the more responsive instrument compared to the WOMAC. Some patients eligible for total knee replacement have expectations of more demanding physical functions than required for daily living. This encouraged us to study the use of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) to assess the outcome of total knee replacement.

Methods: We studied the test-retest reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Swedish version LK 1.0 of the KOOS when used to prospectively evaluate the outcome of 105 patients (mean age 71.3, 66 women) after total knee replacement. The follow-up rates at 6 and 12 months were 92% and 86%, respectively.

Results: The intraclass correlation coefficients were over 0.75 for all subscales indicating sufficient test-retest reliability. Bland-Altman plots confirmed this finding. Over 90% of the patients regarded improvement in the subscales Pain, Symptoms, Activities of Daily Living, and knee-related Quality of Life to be extremely or very important when deciding to have their knee operated on indicating good content validity. The correlations found in comparison to the SF-36 indicated the KOOS measured expected constructs. The most responsive subscale was knee-related Quality of Life. The effect sizes of the five KOOS subscales at 12 months ranged from 1.08 to 3.54 and for the WOMAC from 1.65 to 2.56.

Conclusion: The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) is a valid, reliable, and responsive outcome measure in total joint replacement. In comparison to the WOMAC, the KOOS improved validity and may be at least as responsive as the WOMAC.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Bland-Altman plots for the five KOOS subscales

References

    1. Bellamy N, Kirwan J, Boers M, Brooks P, Strand V, Tugwell P, Altman R, Brandt K, Dougados M, Lequesne M. Recommendations for a core set of outcome measures for future phase III clinical trials in knee, hip, and hand osteoarthritis. Consensus development at OMERACT III. J Rheumatol. 1997;24:799–802.
    1. Bellamy N. Musculoskeletal Clinical Metrology. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 1993.
    1. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989;27:S178–89.
    1. Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care. 1990;28:632–42.
    1. Liang MH, Larson MG, Cullen KE, Schwartz JA. Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. Arthritis Rheum. 1985;28:542–7.
    1. Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) – development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998;28:88–96.
    1. Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS. WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index – additional dimensions for use in subjects with post-traumatic osteoarthritis of the knee. Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 1999;7:216–21. doi: 10.1053/joca.1998.0153.
    1. Roos EM, Nilsdotter AK, Toksvig-Larsen S. Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals. New Orleans; 2002. Patients' expectations suggest additional outcomes in total knee replacement.
    1. 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;8:439–48.
    1. Roos EM, Klassbo M, Lohmander LS. WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness in patients with arthroscopically assessed osteoarthritis. Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities. Scand J Rheumatol. 1999;28:210–5. doi: 10.1080/03009749950155562.
    1. Sullivan M, Karlsson J. SF-36 Hälsoenkät: Swedish Manual and Interpretation Guide. Gothenburg, Sweden: Health Care Unit, Sahlgrenska Hospital. 1994.
    1. 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;15:1833–40.
    1. Barber SD, Noyes FR, Mangine RE, McCloskey JW, Hartman W. Quantitative assessment of functional limitations in normal and anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knees. Clin Orthop. 1990:204–14.
    1. Tegner Y, Lysholm J. Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop. 1985:43–9.
    1. Ware JE, Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–83.
    1. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–10.
    1. Ware JE, Jr, Snow K, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center. 1993.
    1. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York: Academic Press. 1977.
    1. Fortin PR, Stucki G, Katz JN. Measuring relevant change: an emerging challenge in rheumatologic clinical trials. Arthritis Rheum. 1995;38:1027–30.
    1. Kirkley A, Griffin S, McLintock H, Ng L. The development and evaluation of a disease-specific quality of life measurement tool for shoulder instability. The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) Am J Sports Med. 1998;26:764–72.
    1. Roos EM, Brandsson S, Karlsson J. Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for ankle ligament reconstruction. Foot Ankle Int. 2001;22:788–94.
    1. Ehrich EW, Davies GM, Watson DJ, Bolognese JA, Seidenberg BC, Bellamy N. Minimal perceptible clinical improvement with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index questionnaire and global assessments in patients with osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol. 2000;27:2635–41.
    1. Roos EM, Roos HP, Ryd L, Lohmander LS. Substantial disability 3 months after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy: A prospective study of patient-relevant outcomes. Arthroscopy. 2000;16:619–26. doi: 10.1053/jars.2000.4818.
    1. Colker CM, Swain M, Lynch L, Gingerich DA. Effects of a milk-based bioactive micronutrient beverage on pain symptoms and activity of adults with osteoarthritis: a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical evaluation. Nutrition. 2002;18:388–92. doi: 10.1016/S0899-9007(01)00800-0.
    1. Johnston MV, Keith RA, Hinderer SR. Measurement standards for interdisciplinary medical rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992;73:S3–23.
    1. Streiner DL, Norman G. Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. Second edn Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1995.
    1. Brazier JE, Harper R, Munro J, Walters SJ, Snaith ML. Generic and condition-specific outcome measures for people with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology (Oxford) 1999;38:870–7. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/38.9.870.
    1. Shields RK, Enloe LJ, Leo KC. Health related quality of life in patients with total hip or knee replacement. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80:572–9.
    1. Martin DP, Engelberg R, Agel J, Swiontkowski MF. Comparison of the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire with the Short Form-36, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and the Sickness Impact Profile health-status measures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:1323–35.
    1. WHO . Book International classification of functioning, disability and health. Vol. 2003. City: WHO; 2001. International classification of functioning, disability and health.
    1. Nilsdotter AK, Lohmander LS. Age and waiting time as predictors of outcome after total hip replacement for osteoarthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2002;41:1261–7. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/41.11.1261.
    1. Robertsson O, Dunbar M, Pehrsson T, Knutson K, Lidgren L. Patient satisfaction after knee arthroplasty: a report on 27,372 knees operated on between 1981 and 1995 in Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71:262–7. doi: 10.1080/000164700317411852.
    1. Roos EM. Effectiveness and practice variation of rehabilitation after joint replacement. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2003;15:160–2. doi: 10.1097/00002281-200303000-00014.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren