Correlation of a single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE) rating with modified cincinnati knee rating system and IKDC subjective total scores for patients after acl reconstruction or knee arthroscopy

American Journal of Sports Medicine

Volumn 40, Issue 11, 2012, Pages 2487-2491

  Shelbourne, K Donald ^a   Barnes, Adam F ^a   Gray, Tinker ^a  

^a Shelborne Knee Center   (United States)

Author keywords

anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; Cincinnati Knee Rating System; International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee survey; knee arthroscopy; outcomes scores

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT; ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT RECONSTRUCTION; ARTHROSCOPY; ARTICLE; CHILD; COHORT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATOR; HUMAN; INJURY; KNEE; KNEE INJURY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; VERY ELDERLY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT; ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT RECONSTRUCTION; ARTHROSCOPY; CHILD; COHORT STUDIES; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; KNEE INJURIES; KNEE JOINT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84868236132     PISSN: 03635465     EISSN: 15523365     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0363546512458576     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Agel J, LaPrade RF. Assessment of differences between the modified Cincinnati and International Knee Documentation Committee patient outcome scores: a prospective study. Am J Sports Med. 2009 ; 37: 2151-2157
2. Anderson AF, Irrgang JJ, Kocher MS, Mann BJ, Harrast JJ. The International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form: normative data. Am J Sports Med. 2006 ; 34: 128-135
3. Barber-Westin SD, Noyes FR, McCloskey JW. Rigorous statistical reliability, validity, and responsiveness testing of the Cincinnati knee rating system in 350 subjects with uninjured, injured, or anterior cruciate ligament-reconstructed knees. Am J Sports Med. 1999 ; 27: 402-416
4. Gobbi A, Bathan L, Boldrini L. Primary repair combined with bone marrow stimulation in acute anterior cruciate ligament lesions: results in a group of athletes. Am J Sports Med. 2009 ; 37: 571-578
5. Greco NJ, Anderson AF, Mann BJ, et al. Responsiveness of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form in comparison to the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, modified Cincinnati Knee Rating System, and Short Form 36 in patients with focal articular cartilage defects. Am J Sports Med. 2010 ; 38: 891-902
6. Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL, et al. Development and validation of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form. Am J Sports Med. 2001 ; 29: 600-613
7. Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL, et al. Responsiveness of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form. Am J Sports Med. 2006 ; 34: 1567-1573
8. Marx RG, Jones EC, Allen AA, et al. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of four knee outcome scales for athletic patients. J Bone J Surg Am. 2001 ; 83: 1459-1469
9. Schmitt LC, Paterno MV, Huang S. Validity and internal consistency of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form in children and adolescents. Am J Sports Med. 2010 ; 38: 2443-2447
10. Shelbourne KD, Whitaker HJ, McCarroll JR, Rettig AC, Hirschman LD. Anterior cruciate ligament injury: evaluation of intraarticular reconstruction of acute tears without repair: two to seven year followup of 155 athletes. Am J Sports Med. 1990 ; 18: 484-489
11. Taylor DC, Posner M, Curl WW, Feagin JA. Isolated tears of the anterior cruciate ligament: over 30-year follow-up of patients treated with arthrotomy and primary repair. Am J Sports Med. 2009 ; 37: 65-71
12. Williams GN, Taylor DC, Gangel TJ, Uhorchak JM, Arciero RA. Comparison of the single assessment numeric evaluation method and the Lysholm score. Clin Orthop. 2000 ; 373: 184-192
13. Wright JG, Feinstein AR. A comparative contrast of clinimetric and psychometric methods for constructing indexes and rating scales. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992 ; 45: 1201-1218