+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Examining the Minimal Important Difference of Patient-reported Outcome Measures for Individuals with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Model Using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score



Examining the Minimal Important Difference of Patient-reported Outcome Measures for Individuals with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Model Using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score



Journal of Rheumatology 43(2): 395-404



To examine the influence of different analytical methods, baseline covariates, followup periods, and anchor questions when establishing a minimal important difference (MID) for individuals with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Second, to propose MID for improving and worsening on the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from 272 patients with knee OA undergoing a multidisciplinary nonsurgical management strategy. The magnitude and rate of change as well as the influence of baseline covariates were examined for 5 KOOS subscales over 52 weeks. The MID for improving and worsening were investigated using 4 anchor-based methods. Waitlisted for joint replacement and exhibiting unilateral/bilateral symptoms influenced change in KOOS over time. Generally, low correlations between anchors and KOOS change scores limited calculations of MID; thus, they were only proposed for the pain, activities of daily living, and quality of life subscales. The method used to calculate the MID influenced the cutpoint; however, the type of anchor question only influenced the MID when analyzed with a particular mean change method. Depending on patient and clinical characteristics, the subscale, and the analytical approach used, the MID for KOOS improvement ranged from an absolute change of -1.5 to 20.6 points and worsening ranged from -19.17 to 8.5 points. MID vary with patient and clinical characteristics, KOOS subscale, and analytical approach. Provided the anchor question is relevant to the patient-reported outcome and baseline status is considered, the anchor does not appear to influence the MID for improvement or worsening when using some anchor-based methods.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 057827364

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 26773118

DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.150398


Related references

Examining the minimal important difference of the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 23: A345-A346, 2015

Establishing minimum clinically important difference values for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint reconstruction, and knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint reconstruction in orthopaedics. World Journal of Orthopedics 9(3): 41-49, 2018

Minimal important change for the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 22: S179-S180, 2014

Responsiveness and minimal important changes for the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score in subjects undergoing rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 92(10): 864-870, 2013

Comparison of self-reported knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score to performance measures in patients after total knee arthroplasty. Pm and R 3(6): 541-9; Quiz 549, 2011

Focal cartilage defects in the knee impair quality of life as much as severe osteoarthritis: a comparison of knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score in 4 patient categories scheduled for knee surgery. American Journal of Sports Medicine 38(2): 231-237, 2010

The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score reflects the severity of knee osteoarthritis better than the revised Knee Society Score in a general Japanese population. Knee 23(1): 35-42, 2016

Self-reported knee pain and disability among healthy individuals: reference data and factors associated with the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and KOOS-Child. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 25(8): 1282-1290, 2017

The relationship between Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and Timed Up and Go test in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Rheumatology International 33(10): 2691-2694, 2013

Rasch analysis of the 22 knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score-physical function items in Italian patients with knee osteoarthritis. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 94(3): 480-487, 2013

Chinese adaptation and validation of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Rheumatology International 36(10): 1449-1454, 2016

Validation of the Polish version of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in patients with osteoarthritis undergoing total knee replacement. Bmj Open 5(7): E006947, 2015

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the French version of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in knee osteoarthritis patients. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 16(4): 423-428, 2008

Psychometric Properties of the Malay Language Version of Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Questionnaire among Knee Osteoarthritis Patients: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal 11(2): 7, 2017

Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score has higher responsiveness and lower ceiling effect than Knee Society Function Score after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 24(8): 2627-2633, 2017