Longitudinal and cross-sectional validity of the DynaPort® Knee Test in adults with nontraumatic knee complaints in general practice

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 61, Issue 12, 2008, Pages 1271-1278

  Belo, J N ^a   Bierma Zeinstra, S M A ^a   Terwee, C B ^b   Heintjes, E M ^a   Koes, B W ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Cross sectional validity; DynaPort Knee Test; General practice; Knee function; Longitudinal validity; nontraumatic knee complaints

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONSTRUCT VALIDITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GENERAL PRACTICE; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; INTERNAL CONSISTENCY; KNEE FUNCTION; KNEE PAIN; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE;

ACCELERATION; ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ARTHRALGIA; EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; FAMILY PRACTICE; FEMALE; HUMANS; KNEE JOINT; LIFTING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; SEX FACTORS; WALKING; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 55249125205     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.02.006     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Woolf A.D., and Pfleger B. Burden of major musculoskeletal conditions. Bull World Health Organ 81 (2003) 646-656
2. McGowan J.A. Perspectives on the future of bone and joint diseases. J Rheumatol Suppl 67 (2003) 62-64
3. van der Plas C.G., Dingjan R.A., Hamel A., et al. The Dutch College of General Practitioners (NHG) Practice Guideline for traumatic knee complaints. [NHG-Standaard traumatische knieklachten]. Huisarts en Wetenschap 41 (1998) 296-300
4. 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 (1988) 1833-1840
5. Roorda L.D., Jones C.A., Waltz M., Lankhorst G.J., Bouter L.M., van der Eijken J.W., et al. Satisfactory cross cultural equivalence of the Dutch WOMAC in patients with hip osteoarthritis waiting for arthroplasty. Ann Rheum Dis 63 (2004) 36-42
6. Ware Jr. J.E., and Sherbourne C.D. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30 (1992) 473-483
7. Aaronson N.K., Muller M., Cohen P.D., Essink-Bot M.L., Fekkes M., Sanderman R., et al. Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 Health Survey in community and chronic disease populations. J Clin Epidemiol 51 (1998) 1055-1068
8. Insall J.N., Dorr L.D., Scott R.D., and Scott W.N. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248 (1989) 13-14
9. Hoher J., Bach T., Munster A., Bouillon B., and Tiling T. Does the mode of data collection change results in a subjective knee score? Self-administration versus interview. Am J Sports Med 25 (1997) 642-647
10. Lieberman J.R., Dorey F., Shekelle P., Schumacher L., Thomas B.J., Kilgus D.J., et al. Differences between patients' and physicians' evaluations of outcome after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78 (1996) 835-838
11. Testa M.A., and Simonson D.C. Assesment of quality-of-life outcomes. N Engl J Med 334 (1996) 835-840
12. Witvrouw E., Victor J., Bellemans J., Rock B., Van Lummel R., Van Der Slikke R., et al. A correlation study of objective functionality and WOMAC in total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 10 (2002) 347-351
13. 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
14. Wittink H., Rogers W., Sukiennik A., and Carr D.B. Physical functioning: self-report and performance measures are related but distinct. Spine 28 20 (2003) 2407-2413
15. Kennedy D., Stratford P.W., Pagura S.M., Walsh M., and Woodhouse L.J. Comparison of gender and group differences in self-report and physical performance measures in total hip and knee arthroplasty candidates. J Arthroplasty 17 (2002) 70-77
16. Hoeymans N., Feskens E.J., van den Bos G.A., and Kromhout D. Measuring functional status: cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between performance and self-report (Zutphen Elderly Study 1990-1993). J Clin Epidemiol 49 (1996) 1103-1110
17. Stratford P.W., Kennedy D., Pagura S.M., and Gollish J.D. The relationship between self-report and performance-related measures: questioning the content validity of timed tests. Arthritis Rheum 49 (2003) 535-540
18. van den Dikkenberg N., Meijer O.G., van der Slikke R.M., van Lummel R.C., van Dieen J.H., Pijls B., et al. Measuring functional abilities of patients with knee problems: rationale and construction of the DynaPort knee test. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 10 (2002) 204-212
19. Mokkink L.B., Terwee C.B., van der Slikke R.M., van Lummel R.C., Benink R.J., Bouter L.M., et al. Reproducibility and validity of the DynaPort KneeTest. Arthritis Rheum 53 (2005) 357-363
20. Mokkink L.B., Terwee C.B., van Lummel R.C., de Witte S.J., Wetzels L., Bouter L.M., et al. Construct validity of the DynaPort KneeTest: a comparison with observations of physical therapists. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 13 (2005) 738-743
21. Heintjes E.M., Berger M.Y., Koes B.W., and Bierma-Zeinstra S.M. Knee disorders in primary care: design and patient selection of the HONEUR knee cohort. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 6 (2005) 45
22. Altman D.G. Practical statistics for medical research (1991), Chapman and Hall, London 422-423
23. Terwee C.B., Mokkink L.B., Steultjens M.P., and 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 (Oxford) 45 (2006) 890-902
24. Kinnersley P., Peters T., and Stott N. Measuring functional health status in primary care using the COOP-WONCA charts: acceptability, range of scores, construct validity, reliability and sensitivity to change. Br J Gen Pract 44 389 (1994) 545-549
25. van der Waal J.M., Bot S.D., Terwee C.B., van der Windt D.A., Bouter L.M., and Dekker J. Determinants of the clinical course of musculoskeletal complaints in general practice: design of a cohort study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 4 (2003) 3
26. Mokkink L.B., Terwee C.B., van der Slikke R.M., van Lummel R.C., Benink R.J., Bouter L.M., et al. Reproducibility and validity of the DynaPort KneeTest. Arthritis Rheum 2 53 (2005) 357-363
27. Bellamy N., Campbell J., Haraoui B., Gerecz-Simon E., Buchbinder R., Hobby K., et al. Clinimetric properties of the AUSCAN Osteoarthritis Hand Index: an evaluation of reliability, validity and responsiveness. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 10 (2002) 863-869
28. Stratford P.W., and Kennedy D.M. Does parallel item content on WOMAC's pain and function subscales limit its ability to detect change in functional status?. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 5 (2004) 17
29. Faucher M., Poiraudeau S., Lefevre-Colau M.M., Rannou F., Fermanian J., and Revel M. Assessment of the test-retest reliability and construct validity of a modified WOMAC index in knee osteoarthritis. Joint Bone Spine 71 (2004) 121-127
30. Paradowski P.T., Bergman S., Sunden-Lundius A., Lohmander L.S., and Roos E.M. Knee complaints vary with age and gender in the adult population. Population-based reference data for the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). BMC Musculoskelet Disord 7 (2006) 38
31. Soderman P., and Malchau H. Validity and reliability of Swedish WOMAC osteoarthritis index: a self-administered disease-specific questionnaire (WOMAC) versus generic instruments (SF-36 and NHP). Acta Orthop Scand 71 (2000) 39-46
32. Terwee C.B., Dekker F.W., Wiersinga W.M., Prummel M.F., and Bossuyt P.M. On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res 12 (2003) 349-362
33. Salaffi F., Leardini G., Canesi B., Mannoni A., Fioravanti A., Caporali R., et al. Reliability and validity of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index in Italian patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 11 (2003) 551-560
34. Ragland D.R. Dichotomizing continuous outcome variables: dependence of the magnitude of association and statistical power on the cutpoint. Epidemiology 3 (1992) 434-440
35. Streiner D.L. Breaking up is hard to do: the heartbreak of dichotomizing continuous data. Can J Psychiatry 47 (2002) 262-266
36. Brandes M., and Rosenbaum D. Correlations between the step activity monitor and the DynaPort ADL-monitor. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 19 (2004) 91-94
37. Brower L.M., and Poole J.L. Reliability and validity of the Duruoz Hand Index in persons with systemic sclerosis (scleroderma). Arthritis Rheum 51 (2004) 805-809
38. Busser H.J., de Korte W.G., Glerum E.B., and van Lummel R.C. Method for objective assessment of physical work load at the workplace. Ergonomics 41 (1998) 1519-1526
39. Busser H.J., Ott J., van Lummel R.C., Uiterwaal M., and Blank R. Ambulatory monitoring of children's activity. Med Eng Phys 19 (1997) 440-445
40. Cohen R., Amiel G.E., Tann M., Shechter A., Weingarten M., and Reis S. Performance assessment of community-based physicians: evaluating the reliability and validity of a tool for determining CME needs. Acad Med 77 12 Pt 1 (2002) 1247-1254
41. Poole J.L., Cordova K.J., and Brower L.M. Reliability and validity of a self-report of hand function in persons with rheumatoid arthritis. J Hand Ther 19 (2006) 12-16 quiz 7