Assessment of a Satisfaction Measure for Use After Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty

Response to Letter to the Editor on “Assessment of a Satisfaction Measure for Use After Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty”

“…We read with great interest the article written by Dowsey et al [1] titled "A Randomized Control Trial Comparing a Medial Stabilized Total Prosthesis to a Cruciate Retaining and Posterior Stabilized Design: A Report of the Clinical and Functional Outcome Following Total Knee Replacement" in January 2020 issue regarding functional outcome following total joint arthroplasty. Eighty-three patients were randomized into 3 groups and a satisfactory outcome was seen in medial stabilized group similar to other groups.…”

“…We appreciate the opportunity to respond to Professor Daniel Riddle's comments regarding our article "Assessment of a Satisfaction Measure for Use after Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty" [1] that allow us to clarify and strengthen our findings in 3 areas. He correctly notes that satisfaction is a multidimensional construct, yet no conceptual model was included by the original developers of the questionnaire we modified and studied.…”

Letter to the Editor on “Assessment of a Satisfaction Measure for Use After Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty”

“…The measurement of patient satisfaction following hip or knee arthroplasty has received substantial research attention and for good reason, given the current focus on the importance of patientcentered care. Goodman et al [1] recently published a retrospective registry-based study of the psychometric characteristics of a modified version of a patient satisfaction scale, originally developed by Mahomed et al [2]. Parvizi and Bolognesi [3] described the Goodman et al study as "groundbreaking" in a previous letter and while I agree that the study is potentially important, some clarification from the investigators may help the reader to more clearly interpret the potential impact of the study, particularly relative to the large body of literature on the topic [4e7].…”

“…Multidimensional constructs like satisfaction with treatment are generally measured with multidimensional scales [8e10] and are based on conceptual models that define the dimensions of interest. Developers of the scale [2] modified by Goodman et al [1] did not provide a conceptual model that guided scale development. Rather, Mahomed et al relied on input from clinician experts (not named) and a literature review (not specified).…”

“…Loss to follow-up, an important attribute of any longitudinal study, was unclear in the study by Goodman et al [1]. It was assessed by comparing responders (n ¼ 10,004) to non-responders (n ¼ 771), as presented in Appendix 1 in the Goodman et al study.…”