Clinical evaluation of the WOMAC 3.0 OA Index in numeric rating scale format using a computerized touch screen version

Theiler, Robert; Spielberger, Jürgen; Bischoff, H.; Bellamy, Nicholas; Huber, J.; Kroesen, S.

doi:10.1053/joca.2002.0807

Cited by 102 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[7][8][9][10] Our results show that this method is acceptable to patients, irrespective of age and computer experience and confirm the findings of similar studies in other settings. 6,7,11 The hospital numbers at our institution comprise five digits and two letters including the letters B, I and S which …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Outcome Scores Collected by Touchscreen: Medical Audit as it Should be in the 21st Century?

Dixon

Bunker

Chan

2007

annals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION Collecting outcome scores in paper form is fraught with difficulty. We have assessed the feasibility of, and patient's attitude towards, entering scores using a touchscreen.PATIENTS AND METHODS A touchscreen was installed in the orthopaedic out-patient clinic. If relevant, patients were asked to complete either an Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) or Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) using the screen. Patients were given written instructions and their hospital number by the receptionist who had no further input. Scores were completed with two identifiers. A paper questionnaire was used to assess computer experience and attitude towards the touchscreen. RESULTS A total of 1348 patients, average age 50 years, successfully completed a score in the first 12 months. One-third were over 60 years. Overall, 91% correctly entered their hospital number and date of birth, falling to 84% in patients over 70 years. All patients were identifiable. The average time to complete the scores was 4.7 min rising with age. Of 170 patients completing the paper assessment of the touchscreen, one-third had little or no experience of computers and a third were over 60 years. Of patients, 93% were willing to repeat the score using the touchscreen to monitor progress. Two-thirds found it easier to use than expected. Only 10% would prefer a paper score. These results were maintained among patients over 60 years. Only two were unable to complete the score and 80% of those potentially eligible did so. The remainder were called to clinic before the touchscreen was free.CONCLUSIONS Orthopaedic outcome scores can be collected in very large volumes using a touchscreen. Data are then in an immediately usable form. The method is acceptable to patients, independent of age and computer experience. Even in the oldest patients, the accuracy is higher than for paper versions of the score. Combined with operative data, this simple method has the potential to provide a very powerful audit tool indeed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Outcome Scores Collected by Touchscreen: Medical Audit as it Should be in the 21st Century?

Dixon

Bunker

Chan

2007

annals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These questions measure the amount of pain, degree of difficulty in completing various day-to-day activities, and stiffness experienced in the hip or knee, respectively, in the previous 48 hours. Usually subject self-administered, the index is amenable to electronic data capture formats (18)(19)(20).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of the Chinese Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index in Patients From Mainland China With Osteoarthritis of the Knee

Symonds

Hughes

Liao

et al. 2015

Arthritis Care & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. To establish the reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) among Chinese subjects with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee, living in mainland China. Methods. A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted for validation of the electronic personal digital assistant version of the WOMAC Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) 3.1 Index in China. A total of 287 subjects with OA of the knee were randomized to receive either meloxicam (15 mg) or placebo. Psychometric properties of the WOMAC were evaluated by estimating the reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Equivalence of the electronic version was also compared with the paper version. Results. Intraclass correlation coefficients for the WOMAC pain, stiffness, and physical function subscales were 0.81, 0.76, and 0.85, respectively, indicating good test-retest reliability. Similarly, internal consistency was strong (Cronbach's alpha for the 3 WOMAC subscales was 0.84, 0.86, and 0.96, respectively). Pearson's correlation coefficients for WOMAC pain and Short Form 36 health survey (SF-36) bodily pain, as well as WOMAC physical function and SF-36 physical functioning domains were >0.4, indicating convergent validity, whereas the coefficients for all 3 WOMAC domains with SF-36 mental health and mental health component scores were <0.4, indicating divergent validity. There was strong discriminant validity between healthy volunteers and OA patients. The effect sizes of change from baseline to week 12 in WOMAC subscale scores were large, demonstrating sensitivity to change. Equivalence between paper and electronic versions was very high. Conclusion. The culturally and linguistically validated Chinese version of the WOMAC NRS 3.1 for mainland China is psychometrically robust in its validity, reliability, and sensitivity to change for patients with OA of the knee.

show abstract

“…These self-administered comorbidity questions have been validated with a medical record-based comorbidity instrument and with subsequent health status and healthcare utilization [17]. All patients were invited to complete the WOMAC questionnaire [3,19] and the SF 36v2 TM health survey [20] preoperatively, and 1, 2, and 3 years after surgery. Pain and function are primary determining factors of patient satisfaction after TKA [1].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

When Do Patient-reported Assessments Peak after Revision Knee Arthroplasty?

Malviya

Bettinson

Kurtz

et al. 2012

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The best timing for patient visits after revision TKA is unclear. Predictors of pain and function reported in the literature typically look at the influence at a given time that might not be ideal if the score is not at a peak or the earliest possible time. Moreover, most reports of predictors include revisions for infection, which typically have a poorer outcome, or for other indications with variable outcome.Questions/purposes We therefore determined (1) the trend of recovery after revision TKA to determine the best time to measure the peak patient-reported pain and function scores and (2) the influence of comorbidities and age on the patterns of recovery. Methods We prospectively followed 120 patients who had revision TKAs from 2003 to 2008. The patients were assessed within 6 weeks before surgery and at 12 weeks, 1 year, and annually thereafter. We obtained WOMAC and SF-36 scores at each visit. We used a linear mixed model analysis to assess predictors. The minimum followup was 2 years (mean, 3 years; range, 2-7 years). Results The majority of improvements in the WOMAC and SF-36 scores occurred during the first year after surgery after which the scores stabilized. One of the seven independent preoperative variables studied (comorbidities) predicted a trend toward improvement of WOMAC pain, WOMAC function, and SF-36 bodily pain scores. The greater the numbers of comorbidities, the worse were the scores. Age, gender, BMI, indication for surgery, and surgeon did not independently influence the WOMAC or SF-36. Conclusion Our data suggest that one of the times for patient visits after revision TKA should be 1 year after surgery. This time allows for key discrimination of implant performance.

show abstract

Clinical evaluation of the WOMAC 3.0 OA Index in numeric rating scale format using a computerized touch screen version

Abstract: These data indicate that the computerized WOMAC OA index 3.0 is comparable to the paper WOMAC in all three dimensions. The computerized version would allow physicians to get an immediate result and if present a direct comparison with a previous exam.

Cited by 102 publications

References 1 publication

Outcome Scores Collected by Touchscreen: Medical Audit as it Should be in the 21st Century?

Outcome Scores Collected by Touchscreen: Medical Audit as it Should be in the 21st Century?

Validation of the Chinese Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index in Patients From Mainland China With Osteoarthritis of the Knee

When Do Patient-reported Assessments Peak after Revision Knee Arthroplasty?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About