Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery

David J Beard, Kristina Harris, Jill Dawson, Helen Doll, David W Murray, Andrew J Carr, Andrew J Price, David J Beard, Kristina Harris, Jill Dawson, Helen Doll, David W Murray, Andrew J Carr, Andrew J Price

Abstract

Objectives: To present estimates of clinically meaningful or minimal important changes for the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) after joint replacement surgery.

Study design and setting: Secondary data analysis of the NHS patient-reported outcome measures data set that included 82,415 patients listed for hip replacement surgery and 94,015 patients listed for knee replacement surgery was performed.

Results: Anchor-based methods revealed that meaningful change indices at the group level [minimal important change (MIC)], for example in cohort studies, were ∼ 11 points for the OHS and ∼ 9 points for the OKS. For assessment of individual patients, receiver operating characteristic analysis produced MICs of 8 and 7 points for OHS and OKS, respectively. Additionally, the between group minimal important difference (MID), which allows the estimation of a clinically relevant difference in change scores from baseline when comparing two groups, that is, for clinical trials, was estimated to be ∼ 5 points for both the OKS and the OHS. The distribution-based minimal detectable change (MDC90) estimates for the OKS and OHS were 4 and 5 points, respectively.

Conclusion: This study has produced and discussed estimates of minimal important change/difference for the OKS/OHS. These estimates should be used in the power calculations and the interpretation of studies using the OKS and OHS. The MDC90 (∼ 4 points OKS and ∼ 5 points OHS) represents the smallest possible detectable change for each of these instruments, thus indicating that any lower value would fall within measurement error.

Keywords: Hip replacement; Knee replacement; Minimal important change; Minimal important difference; Responder definition; Study designs.

Copyright © 2015 University of Oxford. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Mean OKS change by response category on the global transition item. OKS, Oxford Knee Score.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
ROC curve for the OKS.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
ROC curve for the OHS.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Taxonomy for determining and using meaningful changes following hip or knee replacement surgery. MDC, minimal detectable change; MIC, minimal important change; MID, minimal important difference; ROC, receiver operating characteristic.

References

    1. Mokkink L.B., Terwee C.B., Patrick D.L., Alonso J., Stratford P.W., Knol D.L. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:737–745.
    1. Dawson J., Boller I., Doll H., Lavis G., Sharp R., Cooke P. Minimally important change was estimated for the Manchester–Oxford Foot Questionnaire after foot/ankle surgery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:697–705.
    1. Crosby R.D., Kolotkin R.L., Williams G.R. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:395–407.
    1. Lydick E., Epstein R. Interpretation of quality of life changes. Qual Life Res. 1993;2:221–226.
    1. NHS Information Centre. HES Online. 2012. Available at . Accessed August 13, 2013.
    1. Murray D., Fitzpatrick R., Rogers K., Pandit H., Beard D., Carr A. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89(8):1010–1014.
    1. US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. 2009.
    1. Deyo R.A., Centor R.M. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis. 1986;39(11):897–906.
    1. Hanley J.A., McNeil B.J. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982;143:29–36.
    1. Green B.F. A primer of testing. Am Psychol. 1981;36(10):1001.
    1. Beckerman H., Roebroeck M., Lankhorst G., Becher J., Bezemer P., Verbeek A. Smallest real difference, a link between reproducibility and responsiveness. Qual Life Res. 2001;10:571–578.
    1. Browne J.P., van der Meulen J.H., Lewsey J.D., Lamping D.L., Black N. Mathematical coupling may account for the association between baseline severity and minimally important difference values. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:865–874.
    1. Browne J., Jamieson L., Lewsey J., van der Meulen J., Black N., Cairns J. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in elective surgery. Rep Department Health. 2007:12.
    1. Revicki D., Hays R.D., Cella D., Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:102–109.
    1. King M.T. A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11(2):171–184.
    1. Hutchings A., Frie K.G., Neuburger J., van der Meulen J., Black N. Late response to patient-reported outcome questionnaires after surgery was associated with worse outcome. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;66
    1. Cella D., Hahn E.A., Dineen K. Meaningful change in cancer-specific quality of life scores: differences between improvement and worsening. Qual Life Res. 2002;11:207–221.
    1. Wyrwich K.W., Tardino V.M. Understanding global transition assessments. Qual Life Res. 2006;15:995–1004.
    1. Norman G. Hi! How are you? Response shift, implicit theories and differing epistemologies. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:239–249.
    1. Beaton D.E., Boers M., Wells G.A. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2002;14(2):109.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다