Responsiveness of Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Total Joint Arthroplasty Patients
Section snippets
Patient Sample
PROMs were collected preoperatively and three-months postoperatively for 391 patients enrolled in the California Joint Replacement Registry (CJRR). Patients undergoing either unilateral or bilateral primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) or primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) were included. In order to ensure the analysis was performed on a relatively homogenous patient population, the data analysis excluded patients with pathological fracture or malignant neoplasms (primary or metastatic
Patient Sample
The patient sample consisted of 391 patients from 12 hospitals who completed all three PRO surveys both preoperatively and 3-months postoperatively. A total of 162 THA patients and 229 TKA patients were included in the analysis (Table 1). The mean age at the time of the index procedure was 65 with a standard deviation of 9.7 years. The study population consisted of 57.8% female patients and 72.9% patients of Caucasian race. The THA and TKA patients were statistically similar with the exception
Discussion
We evaluated responsiveness to change and the proportion of patients achieving minimal clinically important differences on patient reported outcome measures in 391 patients with hip or knee arthritis who underwent TJA and were enrolled in the California Joint Replacement Registry. The WOMAC and SF12v2 PCS were highly responsive to change following TJA. Specifically, both questionnaires demonstrated large effect sizes greater than 0.80, which is consistent with a high level of sensitivity to
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to acknowledge Vanessa Chan, MPH for her assistance in preparing this manuscript and the California HealthCare Foundation (CHCF) and Pacific Business Group on health (PBGH) for funding this study.
References (12)
- et al.
Barriers to completion of patient reported outcome measures
J Arthroplasty
(2013) Inpatient surgery
California Joint Replacement Registry
- et al.
Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status
Med Care
(1989) - et al.
How to validate clinically important change in health-related functional status. Is the magnitude of the effect size consistently related to magnitude of change as indicated by a global question rating?
J Eval Clin Pract
(2001) - et al.
Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods
J Rheumatol
(2001)
Cited by (72)
Reliability and validity of commonly used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
2022, Orthopaedics and Traumatology: Surgery and ResearchNavigated and Robot-Assisted Technology in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Do Outcome Differences Achieve Minimal Clinically Important Difference?
2022, Journal of ArthroplastyCitation Excerpt :To identify changes in PROMs which amount to meaningful differences for patients, the concept of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was introduced. Two common methods for determining an MCID are “anchoring,” or comparing, PROM score changes to patients’ subjective reports of symptom changes, or by comparison to a second PROM for which a MCID had previously been identified [22–25]. MCID values are specific to the surgical intervention and postoperative timing for which comparisons are made.
Source of funding: This study was funded by the California HealthCare Foundation (CHCF) and Pacific Business Group on Health (PBGH). The funding source did not play a role in the investigation or the interpretation of the results.
The Conflict of Interest statement associated with this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.09.026.