Responsiveness of the electronic touch screen WOMAC 3.1 OA Index in a short term clinical trial with rofecoxib

Cross-Culturally Adapted Versions of Patient Reported Outcome Measures for the Lower Extremity

Background

A large number of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been developed in the English language for various lower extremity orthopaedic pathologies. Twenty different PROMs were recommended for 15 specific musculoskeletal lower extremity pathologies or surgeries. However, the availability of cross-culturally adapted versions of these recommended PROMs is unknown.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to identify the cross-culturally adapted versions of recommended PROMs for individuals experiencing orthopedic lower extremity pathologies or undergoing surgeries, and to identify the psychometric evidence that supports their utilization.

Study design

Literature Review.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL, SPORTDisucs and Scopus were searched for cross-culturally adapted translated studies through May 2022. The search strategy included the names of the 20 recommended PROMs from previous umbrella review along with the following terms: reliability, validity, responsiveness, psychometric properties and cross-cultural adaptation. Studies that presented a non-English language version of the PROM with evidence in at least one psychometric property to support its use were included. Two authors independently evaluated the studies for inclusion and independently extracted data.

Results

Nineteen PROMS had cross-culturally adapted and translated language versions. The KOOS, WOMAC, ACL-RSL, FAAM, ATRS, HOOS, OHS, MOXFQ and OKS were available in over 10 different language versions. Turkish, Dutch, German, Chinese and French were the most common languages, with each language having more than 10 PROMs with psychometric properties supporting their use. The WOMAC and KOOS were both available in 10 languages and had all three psychometric properties of reliability, validity, and responsiveness supporting their use.

Conclusion

Nineteen of the 20 recommended instruments were available in multiple languages. The PROM most frequently cross-culturally adapted and translated were the KOOS and WOMAC. PROMs were most frequently cross-culturally adapted and translated into Turkish. International researchers and clinicians may use this information to more consistently implement PROMs with the most appropriate psychometric evidence available to support their use.

Level of evidence

3a.

Test reliability and comparability of paper and Chinese electronic version of the western Ontario and McMaster University osteoarthritis index: protocol for a randomised controlled clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

The Western Ontario and McMaster University osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) is the most commonly used indicator of disease-specific outcome in knee osteoarthritis for its convenience and reliability. It has two formats the paper-based WOMAC (p-WOMAC) and the electronic WOMAC (e-WOMAC). In China, the p-WOMAC has been widely used though e-WOMAC is yet untested. This study aims to test whether e-WOMAC is consistent with the p-WOMAC before and after the intervention.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A total of 70 patients from Shuguang Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine will be randomly assigned in two groups, named, group A and group B. This study is divided into three stages. In the first stage, patients in group A will be evaluated first by p-WOMAC and then by e-WOMAC. Patients in group B will be evaluated by e-WOMAC and then by p-WOMAC. In the second stage of the study, drug interventions will be implemented. 200 mg celecoxib will be administered orally once a day starting from the second day of enrolment for a period of 21 days. In the third stage, postintervention evaluation will be conducted after administration. Patients in group A will be evaluated first by e-WOMAC and then by p-WOMAC. Patients in group B will be evaluated first by p-WOMAC and then by e-WOMAC. In order to avoid the possible bias because of patients' potential memory, e-WOMAC and p-WOMAC will be taken for each patient at 15 min apart. The primary outcome of the study is the mean score difference in WOMAC, and the secondary outcomes are the score differences in WOMAC subscales: pain, stiffness and physical function.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol has been approved by the Independent Review Board of SGH (approval number: 2020-814-21-01). The results of the trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2100050914.

Modified hybrid cementing technique reduces stem tip pain and improves patient's satisfaction after revision total knee arthroplasty

Background

There have been no studies comparing patient-reported outcome measures including end-of-stem tip pain and patient satisfaction based on the use of cementing techniques in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to compare end-of-stem tip pain and PROMs with hybrid and modified hybrid cementing techniques in revision TKAs.

Method

Sixty-two cases of revision TKA performed by a single surgeon were divided into two groups based on the cementing technique with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Two types of cementing technique for femoral and tibial stems were used as follows: (1) a hybrid cementing technique (33 cases), in which cement was applied immediately distal to the modular junction of the stem and the component while the distal stem was press-fitted into the diaphysis without using cement; and (2) a modified hybrid cementing technique (29 cases), in which cement was applied to the tip of femoral and tibial stems. The thigh and shin were assessed for the end-of-stem tip pain. Patient satisfaction was evaluated based on the satisfaction items of New Knee Society Score.

Results

Modified hybrid cementing significantly lowered the percentage of patients manifesting shin pain (3.4% vs. 24.2%, p = 0.029). Patients treated with the modified hybrid cementing technique showed a higher satisfaction rate (p = 0.003). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed an increase in the odds of satisfaction 32.686-fold (p = 0.004) in patients without pain at the end-of-stem tip in the shin and 9.261-fold (p = 0.027) in patients treated with the modified hybrid cementing technique.

Conclusion

The modified hybrid cementing technique for fixation of long-stem in revision TKAs reduced the end-of-stem tip pain in the shin, leading to significantly higher satisfaction compared with the hybrid cementing technique after revision TKA.

Level of evidence

Level III

Accuracy, Validity, and Reliability of an Electronic Visual Analog Scale for Pain on a Touch Screen Tablet in Healthy Older Adults: A Clinical Trial

Background

New technology for clinical data collection is rapidly evolving and may be useful for both researchers and clinicians; however, this new technology has not been tested for accuracy, reliability, or validity.

Objective

This study aims to test the accuracy of visual analog scale (VAS) for pain on a newly designed application on the iPad (iPadVAS) and measure the reliability and validity of iPadVAS compared to a paper copy (paperVAS).

Methods

Accuracy was determined by physically measuring an iPad scale on screen and comparing it to the results from the program, with a researcher collecting 101 data points. A total of 22 healthy community dwelling older adults were then recruited to test reliability and validity. Each participant completed 8 VAS (4 using each tool) in a randomized order. Reliability was measured using interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and validity measured using Bland-Altman graphs and correlations.

Results

Of the measurements for accuracy, 64 results were identical, 2 results were manually measured as being 1 mm higher than the program, and 35 as 1 mm lower. Reliability for the iPadVAS was excellent with individual ICC 0.90 (95% CI 0.82-0.95) and averaged ICC 0.97 (95% CI 0.95-1.0) observed. Linear regression demonstrated a strong relationship with a small negative bias towards the iPad (−2.6, SD 5.0) with limits of agreement from −12.4 to 7.1.

Conclusions

The iPadVAS provides a convenient, user-friendly, and efficient way of collecting data from participants in measuring their current pain levels. It has potential use in documentation management and may encourage participatory healthcare.

Trial Registration

Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): 367297; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=367297&isReview=true (Archived by Webcite at http://www.webcitation.org/6d9xYoUbD).

Patient-reported outcome assessment after total joint replacement: comparison of questionnaire completion times on paper and tablet computer

INTRODUCTION

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment is becoming increasingly important after joint replacement surgery. However, PRO data collection, questionnaire handling, and data processing are time consuming and costly process. The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficiency of PRO assessment using tablet computers compared with traditional paper questionnaires in a total hip or knee arthroplasty (THR or TKR) population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We recruited 100 patients from outpatient clinics attending for routine follow-up 2 months, 1 year, or 5 years after THR or TKR. Fifty patients completed the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) osteoarthritis score and Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) questionnaires on paper, and 50 patients completed these on a tablet computer. Questionnaire completion was timed for each PRO assessment and for manual data entry of the paper questionnaires into the database. The t test, Mann-Whitney U test, Fisher's exact test, and Wilcoxon test were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 67.0 years (standard deviation 10.3 years), with no significant difference between the two groups. Median time for WOMAC questionnaire completion (including data entry for the paper questionnaires) was 197 s for the paper version and 117 s for the tablet version (p < 0.001). Median times for completion of FJS-12 were comparable for paper and tablet versions (32 vs. 37 s). We did not find a significant correlation between age and time for questionnaire completion.

CONCLUSION

Electronic PRO data collection can substantially decrease time, logistics, and effort associated with questionnaire completion in daily clinical practice. It is also acceptable for use in an older arthroplasty population.

Measurement properties of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of the measurement properties of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and to evaluate the quality of WOMAC measurement studies using COSMIN (Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments) criteria.

METHODS

A search was conducted in the MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases through September 2013. Data that assessed the WOMAC measurement model, reliability, validity, respondent burden, and equivalence across methods of administration were extracted. Overall study quality was rated following COSMIN criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 76 articles from 22 countries were included. Internal consistency reliability was consistently high (≥0.90) for the function scale and acceptable (≥0.70) for the pain and stiffness scales. Test-retest reliability was acceptable. Score equivalence was demonstrated across paper and electronic methods of data collection. Floor and ceiling effects were low except for notable (24-38%) proportions of patients achieving the best possible scores on the pain and stiffness scales 1-23 years after arthroplasty. Five exploratory factor analyses did not support a measurement model in which the pain and function items were distinct. Correlations between the WOMAC pain and function scales were high (median 0.79). The WOMAC pain and function scales had similar correlations with other pain measures, and therefore the WOMAC pain scale did not show divergent validity. COSMIN criteria were not fully met in most studies.

CONCLUSION

The WOMAC scales were reliable, but its pain scale was highly related to physical function. Further research into joint-specific pain measures that have broader content validity is needed.

Patients respond similarly to paper and electronic versions of the WOMAC and SF-12 following total joint arthroplasty

The purpose of this study was to determine agreement between responses on electronic and paper versions of the WOMAC and SF-12(v2) questionnaires following total hip and total knee arthroplasty. Patients completed both electronic and paper questionnaires with a one week interval in-between. The order in which they completed the two versions was randomly assigned. A total of 53 patients completed the study, with a mean age of 69 years (range 50-90 years). The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were high, indicating excellent agreement (WOMAC ICC = 0.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.98), SF-12 (PCS) ICC = 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.97; SF-12 (MCS) ICC = 0.92, 95%CI 0.86-0.95). Online data collection may be substituted for the traditional paper method with no significant effect on the criterion validity of the questionnaires.

Validity of a simple Internet-based outcome-prediction tool in patients with total hip replacement: a pilot study

We developed a user-friendly Internet-based tool for patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) due to osteoarthritis to predict their pain and function after surgery. In the first step, the key questions were identified by statistical modelling in a data set of 375 patients undergoing THR. Based on multiple regression, we identified the two most predictive WOMAC questions for pain and the three most predictive WOMAC questions for functional outcome, while controlling for comorbidity, body mass index, age, gender and specific comorbidities relevant to the outcome. In the second step, a pilot study was performed to validate the resulting tool against the full WOMAC questionnaire among 108 patients undergoing THR. The mean difference between observed (WOMAC) and model-predicted value was −1.1 points (95% confidence interval, CI −3.8, 1.5) for pain and −2.5 points (95% CI −5.3, 0.3) for function. The model-predicted value was within 20% of the observed value in 48% of cases for pain and in 57% of cases for function. The tool demonstrated moderate validity, but performed weakly for patients with extreme levels of pain and extreme functional limitations at 3 months post surgery. This may have been partly due to early complications after surgery. However, the outcome-prediction tool may be useful in helping patients to become better informed about the realistic outcome of their THR.

Comparative responsiveness of outcome measures for total knee arthroplasty

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the responsiveness of various patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and clinician-reported outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) over a 2-year period.

METHODS

Data were collected in a prospective cohort study of primary TKA. Patients who had completed Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) osteoarthritis (OA) index, EQ-5D, Knee Society Score and range of movement (ROM) assessment were included. Five time points were assessed: pre-operative, 2 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years post-operative.

RESULTS

Data from 98 TKAs were available for analysis. Largest effect sizes (ES) for change from pre-operative to 2-month follow-up were observed for the Knee Society Score (KSS) Knee score (1.70) and WOMAC Total (-1.50). For the period from 6 months to 1 year the largest ES for change were shown by the FJS-12 (0.99) and the KSS Function Score (0.88). The EQ-5D showed the strongest ceiling effect at 1-year follow-up with 84.4% of patients scoring the maximum score. ES for the time from 1- to 2-year follow-up were largest for the FJS-12 (0.50). All other outcome measures showed ES equal or below 0.30.

CONCLUSION

Outcome measures differ considerably in responsiveness, especially beyond one year post-operatively. Joint-specific outcome measures are more responsive than clinician-reported or generic health outcome tools. The FJS-12 was the most responsive of the tools assessed; suggesting that joint awareness may be a more discerning measure of patient outcome than traditional PROMs.

Development of a computer-adaptive version of the forgotten joint score

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an important endpoint in orthopedics providing comprehensive information about patients' perspectives on treatment outcome. Computer-adaptive test (CAT) measures are an advanced method for assessing PROs using item sets that are tailored to the individual patient. This provides increased measurement precision and reduces the number of items. We developed a CAT version of the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), a measure of joint awareness in everyday life. CAT development was based on FJS data from 580 patients after THA or TKA (808 assessments). The CAT version reduced the number of items by half at comparable measurement precision. In a feasibility study we administered the newly developed CAT measure on tablet PCs and found that patients actually preferred electronic questionnaires over paper-pencil questionnaires.

Validation of web-based administration of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ-12)

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

We studied a web-based version of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ-12).

METHODS

A randomized crossover study in which subjects completed both a web-based and paper-based version of the PISQ-12, with a 2-week separation between the completion of the two versions. Demographic data and questionnaire preferences were also assessed. Group 1 completed the web version first, and group 2 completed the paper version first.

RESULTS

We recruited 52 women and 50 (96.2%) completed the study. Demographic data were similar for the two groups. There was no difference in total PISQ-12 score (P = 0.41) and a high degree of correlation between versions (r = 0.88). Women preferred the web-based PISQ-12 (77.6%) over the paper-based version.

CONCLUSION

The web-based version of the PISQ-12 is a reliable alternative to the standard paper-based version and was preferred by women in this study regardless of age, race, and education.

Osteoarthritis Index delivered by mobile phone (m-WOMAC) is valid, reliable, and responsive

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the validity, reliability, responsiveness, and mode preference of electronic data capture (EDC) using the Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) numerical rating scale (NRS) 3.1 Osteoarthritis (OA) Index on Motorola V3 mobile phones.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Patients with OA undergoing hip or knee joint replacement were assessed preoperatively and 3-4 months postoperatively, completing the WOMAC Index in paper (p-WOMAC) and electronic (m-WOMAC) format in random order.

RESULTS

Data were successfully and securely transmitted from patients in Australia to a server in the United States. Pearson correlations between the summated total index scores (TISs) for the p-WOMAC and m-WOMAC pre- and postsurgery were 0.98 and 0.99 (P<0.0001). There were no clinically important or statistically significant between-method differences in the adjusted total summated scores, pre- and postsurgery (adjusted mean differences=4.44, P=0.474 and 1.73, P=0.781, respectively). Internal consistency estimates of m-WOMAC reliability were 0.87-0.98. The m-WOMAC detected clinically important, statistically significant (P<0.0001) improvements in pain, stiffness, function, and TIS. No statistically significant differences in mode preference were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

There was close agreement and no significant differences between m-WOMAC and p-WOMAC scores. This study confirms the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Exco InTouch-engineered, Java-based m-WOMAC Index application. EDC with the m-WOMAC Index provides unique opportunities for using quantitative measurement in clinical research and practice.

Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D when measuring the benefits of alleviating knee pain

Objective

To assess the practicality, validity and responsiveness of using each of two utility measures (the EQ-5D and SF-6D) to measure the benefits of alleviating knee pain.

Methods

Participants in a randomised controlled trial, which was designed to compare four different interventions for people with self-reported knee pain, were asked to complete the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at both pre- and post-intervention. For both utility measures, we assessed their practicality (completion rate), construct validity (ability to discriminate between baseline WOMAC severity levels), and responsiveness (ability to discriminate between three groups: those whose total WOMAC score, i) did not improve, ii) improved by <20%, and iii) improved by ≥20%).

Results

The EQ-5D was completed by 97.7% of the 389 participants, compared to 93.3% for the SF-6D. Both the EQ-5D and SF-6D were able to discriminate between participants with different levels of WOMAC severity (p < 0.001). The mean EQ-5D change was -0.036 for group i), 0.091 for group ii), and 0.127 for group iii), compared to 0.021, 0.023 and 0.053 on the SF-6D. These change scores were significantly different according to the EQ-5D (p < 0.001), but not the SF-6D.

Conclusion

The EQ-5D and SF-6D had largely comparable practicality and construct validity. However, in contrast to the EQ-5D, the SF-6D could not discriminate between those who improved post-intervention, and those who did not. This suggests that it is more appropriate to use the EQ-5D in future cost-effectiveness analyses of interventions which are designed to alleviate knee pain.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN93206785

Do estimates of cost-utility based on the EQ-5D differ from those based on the mapping of utility scores?

Background

Mapping has been used to convert scores from condition-specific measures into utility scores, and to produce estimates of cost-effectiveness. We sought to compare the QALY gains, and incremental cost per QALY estimates, predicted on the basis of mapping to those based on actual EQ-5D scores.

Methods

In order to compare 4 different interventions 389 individuals were asked to complete both the EQ-5D and the Western Ontartio and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months post-intervention. Using baseline data various mapping models were developed, where WOMAC scores were used to predict the EQ-5D scores. The performance of these models was tested by predicting the EQ-5D post-intervention scores. The preferred model (that with the lowest mean absolute error (MAE)) was used to predict the EQ-5D scores, at all time points, for individuals who had complete WOMAC and EQ-5D data. The mean QALY gain associated with each intervention was calculated, using both actual and predicted EQ-5D scores. These QALY gains, along with previously estimated changes in cost, were also used to estimate the actual and predicted incremental cost per QALY associated with each of the four interventions.

Results

The EQ-5D and the WOMAC were completed at baseline by 348 individuals, and at all time points by 259 individuals. The MAE in the preferred model was 0.129, and the mean QALY gains for each of the four interventions was predicted to be 0.006, 0.058, 0.058, and 0.136 respectively, compared to the actual mean QALY gains of 0.087, 0.081, 0.120, and 0.149. The most effective intervention was estimated to be associated with an incremental cost per QALY of £6,068, according to our preferred model, compared to £13,154 when actual data was used.

Conclusion

We found that actual QALY gains, and incremental cost per QALY estimates, differed from those predicted on the basis of mapping. This suggests that though mapping may be of value in predicting the cost-effectiveness of interventions which have not been evaluated using a utility measure, future studies should be encouraged to include a method of actual utility measurement.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN93206785

Do estimates of cost-utility based on the EQ-5D differ from those based on the mapping of utility scores?

BACKGROUND

Mapping has been used to convert scores from condition-specific measures into utility scores, and to produce estimates of cost-effectiveness. We sought to compare the QALY gains, and incremental cost per QALY estimates, predicted on the basis of mapping to those based on actual EQ-5D scores.

METHODS

In order to compare 4 different interventions 389 individuals were asked to complete both the EQ-5D and the Western Ontartio and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months post-intervention. Using baseline data various mapping models were developed, where WOMAC scores were used to predict the EQ-5D scores. The performance of these models was tested by predicting the EQ-5D post-intervention scores. The preferred model (that with the lowest mean absolute error (MAE)) was used to predict the EQ-5D scores, at all time points, for individuals who had complete WOMAC and EQ-5D data. The mean QALY gain associated with each intervention was calculated, using both actual and predicted EQ-5D scores. These QALY gains, along with previously estimated changes in cost, were also used to estimate the actual and predicted incremental cost per QALY associated with each of the four interventions.

RESULTS

The EQ-5D and the WOMAC were completed at baseline by 348 individuals, and at all time points by 259 individuals. The MAE in the preferred model was 0.129, and the mean QALY gains for each of the four interventions was predicted to be 0.006, 0.058, 0.058, and 0.136 respectively, compared to the actual mean QALY gains of 0.087, 0.081, 0.120, and 0.149. The most effective intervention was estimated to be associated with an incremental cost per QALY of pound6,068, according to our preferred model, compared to pound13,154 when actual data was used.

CONCLUSION

We found that actual QALY gains, and incremental cost per QALY estimates, differed from those predicted on the basis of mapping. This suggests that though mapping may be of value in predicting the cost-effectiveness of interventions which have not been evaluated using a utility measure, future studies should be encouraged to include a method of actual utility measurement.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN93206785.

Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review

OBJECTIVES

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs; self-report assessments) are increasingly important in evaluating medical care and treatment efficacy. Electronic administration of PROs via computer is becoming widespread. This article reviews the literature addressing whether computer-administered tests are equivalent to their paper-and-pencil forms.

METHODS

Meta-analysis was used to synthesize 65 studies that directly assessed the equivalence of computer versus paper versions of PROs used in clinical trials. A total of 46 unique studies, evaluating 278 scales, provided sufficient detail to allow quantitative analysis.

RESULTS

Among 233 direct comparisons, the average mean difference between modes averaged 0.2% of the scale range (e.g., 0.02 points on a 10-point scale), and 93% were within +/-5% of the scale range. Among 207 correlation coefficients between paper and computer instruments (typically intraclass correlation coefficients), the average weighted correlation was 0.90; 94% of correlations were at least 0.75. Because the cross-mode correlation (paper vs. computer) is also a test-retest correlation, with potential variation because of retest, we compared it to the within-mode (paper vs. paper) test-retest correlation. In four comparisons that evaluated both, the average cross-mode paper-to-computer correlation was almost identical to the within-mode correlation for readministration of a paper measure (0.88 vs. 0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

Extensive evidence indicates that paper- and computer-administered PROs are equivalent.

Postoperative Physiotherapie im Akutbereich – wann, welche und wieviel?

This article documents the role of early musculoskeletal rehabilitation in acute care after orthopaedic surgery involving the hip, knee or spine. It discusses the open questions of the type, time and intensity of physiotherapeutic intervention. The role of standardized quality management to define clinical pathways is discussed.