Willingness to go through surgery again validated the WOMAC clinically important difference from THR/TKR surgery

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 61, Issue 9, 2008, Pages 907-918

  Chesworth, Bert M ^a   Mahomed, Nizar N ^b   Bourne, Robert B ^a   Davis, Aileen M ^c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Arthroplasty; Clinically important difference; Total hip replacement; Total knee replacement; Validation; WOMAC

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OSTEOARTHRITIS; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PAIN THRESHOLD; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT AUTONOMY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SCORING SYSTEM; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS; TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT; VALIDATION STUDY;

AGED; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, HIP; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, KNEE; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; MALE; ONTARIO; OSTEOARTHRITIS; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PAIN, POSTOPERATIVE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROBABILITY; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REOPERATION; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

EID: 48349144955     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.014     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Ethgen O., Bruyere O., Richy F., Dardennes C., and Reginster J.-V. Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty. A qualitative and systematic review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86 5 (2004) 963-974
2. Laupacis A., Bourne R., Rorabeck C., Feeny D., Wong C., Tugwell P., et al. The effect of elective total hip replacement on health-related quality of life. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75 11 (1993) 1619-1626
3. Rorabeck C.H., Bourne R.B., Laupacis A., Feeny D., Wong C., Tugwell P., et al. A double-blind study of 250 cases comparing cemented with cementless total hip arthroplasty. Cost-effectiveness and its impact on health-related quality of life. Clin Orthop 298 (1994) 156-164
4. Nilsdotter A.K., Roos E.M., Westerlund J.P., Roos H.P., and Lohmander L.S. Comparative responsiveness of measures of pain and function after total hip replacement. Arthritis Rheum 45 3 (2001) 258-262
5. Fortin P.R., Penrod J.R., Clarke A.E., St Pierre Y., Joseph L., Bélisle P., et al. Timing of total joint replacement affects clinical outcomes among patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Arthritis Rheum 46 12 (2002) 3327-3330
6. Kane R.L., Saleh K.J., Wilt T.J., Bershadsky B., Cross W.W.I., MacDonald R.M., et al. Total Knee Replacement. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 86. AHRQ Publication No. 04-E006-2 (2003), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Minneapolis, MN
7. Ostendorf M., van Stel H.F., Buskens E., Schrijvers A.J.P., Marting L.N., Verbout A.J., et al. Patient-reported outcome in total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86 6 (2004) 801-808
8. Xu M., Garbuz D.S., Kuramoto L., and Sobolev B. Classifying health-related quality of life outcomes of total hip arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 6 (2005) 48-56
9. Ehrich E.W., Davies G.M., Watson D.J., Bolognese J.A., Seidenberg B.C., and 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 27 11 (2000) 2635-2641
10. Goldsmith C.H., Boers M., Bombardier C., and Tugwell P. Criteria for clinically important changes in outcomes: development, scoring and evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis patient and trial profiles. J Rheumatol 20 3 (1993) 561-565
11. Wells G.A., Tugwell P., Kraag G.R., Baker P.R.A., Groh J., and Redelmeier D.A. Minimum important difference between patients with rheumatoid arthritis: the patient's perspective. J Rheumatol 20 3 (1993) 557-560
12. Beaton D.E., Bombardier C., Katz J.N., Wright J.G., Wells G., Boers M., et al. Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. J Rheumatol 28 2 (2001) 400-405
13. Wright J.G. The minimal important difference: who's to say what is important?. J Clin Epidemiol 49 11 (1996) 1221-1222
14. Bellamy N., Buchanan W.W., Goldsmith C.H., Campbell J., and Stitt L.W. 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 15 12 (1988) 1833-1840
15. Jones C.A., Voaklander D.C., Johnston W.C., and Suarez-Almazor M.E. The effect of age on pain, function and quality of life after total hip and knee arthroplasty. Arch Intern Med 161 (2001) 454-460
16. Jones C.A., Voaklander D.C., and Suarez-Almazor M.E. Determinants of function after total knee arthroplasty. Phys Ther 83 8 (2003) 696-706
17. Lingard E.A., Katz J.N., Wright R.J., Wright E.A., Sledge C.B., and the Kinemax Outcomes group. Validity and responsiveness of the knee society clinical rating system in comparison with the SF-36 and WOMAC. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83 12 (2001) 1856-1864
18. Lingard E.A., Katz J.N., Wright E.A., and the Kinemax Outcomes group. Predicting the outcome of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86 10 (2004) 2179-2186
19. Mahomed N.N., Liang M.H., Cook E.F., Daltroy L.H., Fortin P.R., Fossel A.H., et al. The importance of patient expectations in predicting functional outcomes after total joint arthroplasty. J Rheumatol 29 (2000) 1273-1279
20. Nilsdotter A.-K., Aurell Y., Siösteen A.-K., Lohmander L.S., and Roos H.P. Radiographic stage of osteoarthritis or sex of the patient does not predict one year outcome after total hip arthroplasty. Ann Rheum Dis 60 (2001) 228-232
21. Nilsdotter A.-K., and Lohmander L.S. Age and waiting times as predictors of outcome after total hip replacement for osteoarthritis. Rheumatology 41 (2002) 1261-1267
22. Nilsdotter A.-K., Petersson I.F., Roos E.M., and Lohmander L.S. Predictors of patient relevant outcome after total hip replacement for osteoarthritis: a prospective study. Ann Rheum Dis 62 (2003) 923-930
23. Kennedy D., Stratford P.W., Pagura S.M.C., Wessel J., Gollish J.D., and Woodhouse L.J. Exploring the factorial validity and clinical interpretability of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Physiother Can 55 (2003) 160-168
24. Stratford P.W., Kennedy D.M., and Hanna S.E. Condition-specific Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Index was not superior to region-specific Lower Extremity Functional Scale at detecting change. J Clin Epidemiol 57 (2004) 1025-1032
25. Terwee C.B., van der Slikke R.M., van Lummel R.C., Benink R.J., Meijers W.G., and de Vet H.C. Self-reported physical functioning was more influenced by pain than performance-based physical functioning in knee-osteoarthritis patients. J Clin Epidemiol 59 (2006) 724-731
26. Bellamy N. WOMAC: a 20-year experiential review of a patient-centered self-report health status questionnaire. J Rheumatol 29 12 (2002) 2472-2476
27. Angst F., Aeschlimann A., and Stucki G. Smallest detectable and minimal clinically important differences of rehabilitation intervention with their implications for required sample sizes using WOMAC and SF-36 quality of life measurement instruments in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities. Arthritis Care Res 45 (2001) 384-391
28. Angst F., Aeschlimann A., Michel B.A., and Stucki G. Minimal clinically important rehabilitation effects in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities. J Rheumatol 29 (2002) 131-138
29. Quintana J.M., Escobar A., Bilbao A., Aróstegui I., Lafuente I., and Vidaurreta I. Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after hip joint replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 13 (2005) 1076-1083
30. Escobar A., Quintana J.M., Bilbao A., Aróstegui I., Lafuente I., and Vidaurreta I. Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after total knee replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 15 (2007) 273-280
31. Guideline for Wait Time Thresholds for Total Hip and Knee Replacement Surgery Based on Severity: Detailed Report (2006), Ontario Joint Replacement Registry, London
32. American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA)-Physical Status score. Available at. www.asahq.org/clinical/physicalstatus.htm Accessed February 21, 2006
33. Jaeschke R., Singer J., and Guyatt G.H. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10 (1989) 407-415
34. Dillman D. Mail and Internet surveys: the tailored design method (2000), John Wiley & Sons, New York
35. Bellamy N. WOMAC osteoarthritis index. A user's guide (1995), University of Western Ontario, London
36. Armitage P., Berry G., and Matthews J.N.S. Statistical methods in medical research. 4th edition (2001), Blackwell Science, Oxford
37. Wells G., Beaton D., Shea B., Boers M., Simon L., Strand V., et al. Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol 28 2 (2001) 406-412
38. Hanley J.A., and McNeil B.J. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143 1 (1982) 29-36
39. Deyo R.A., and Centor R.M. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis 39 11 (1986) 897-906
40. Sackett D.L., Haynes R.B., Guyatt G.H., and Tugwell P. Clinical epidemiology. A basic science for clinical medicine. 2nd edition (1991), Little Brown, Boston, MA
41. Guyatt G.H., Norman G.R., Juniper E.F., and Griffiths L.E. A critical look at transition ratings. J Clin Epidemiol 55 (2002) 900-908
42. Norman G.R., Stratford P., and Regehr G. Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol 50 8 (1997) 869-879
43. Carmines E.G., and Zeller R.A. Reliability and validity assessment. In: Sullivan J.L. (Ed). Quantitative applications in the social sciences (1979), Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA
44. Portney L.G., and Watkins M.P. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice (2000), Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
45. Tubach F., Ravaud P., Baron G., Falissard B., Logeart I., Bellamy N., et al. Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient-reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimally clinically important improvement. Ann Rheum Dis 64 1 (2005) 29-33
46. Tubach F., Ravaud P., Baron G., Falissard B., Logeart I., Bellamy N., et al. Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state. Ann Rheum Dis 64 (2005) 34-37
47. Beaton D.E., Bombardier C., Katz J.N., Wright J.G., Wells G., Boers M., et al., OMERACT MCID Working group. Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. J Rheumatol 28 2 (2001) 400-405
48. Bland J.M., and Altman D.G. Statistics notes: Cronbach's alpha. Br Med J 314 (1997) 572
49. Swets J.A. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240 (1988) 1285-1293
50. Beaton D.E., Bombardier C., Katz J.N., and Wright J.G. A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 54 12 (2001) 1204-1217
51. Aday L. Designing and conducting health surveys: a comprehensive guide (1996), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA
52. Kim J., Lonner J.H., Nelson C.L., and Lotke P.A. Response bias: effect on outcomes evaluation by mail surveys after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86 1 (2004) 15-21
53. Ryser L., Wright B.D., Aeschlimann A., Mariacher-Gehler S., and Stucki G. A new look at the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index using Rasch analysis. Arthritis Care Res 12 (1999) 331-335
54. Faucher M., Poiraudeau S., Lefevre-Colau M.M., Rannou F., Fermanian J., and Revel M. Algo-functional assessment of knee osteoarthritis: comparison of the test-retest reliability and construct validity of the WOMAC and Lequesne indexes. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 10 (2002) 602-610
55. Bellamy N., and Buchanan W.W. A preliminary evaluation of the dimensionality and clinical importance of pain and disability in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. Clin Rheumatol 5 2 (1986) 231-241