Self-Reported Functional Status as Predictor of Observed Functional Capacity in Subjects with Early Osteoarthritis of the Hip and Knee: A Diagnostic Study in the CHECK Cohort

Abstract

Objectives Patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) may experience functional limitations in work settings. In the Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee study (CHECK) physical function was both self-reported and measured performance-based, using Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE). Relations between self-reported scores on SF-36 and WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Arthritis Index, function scales) and FCE performance were studied, and their diagnostic value for clinicians in predicting observed physical work limitations was assessed. Methods Ninety-two subjects scored physical function on SF-36 (scale 0-100, 100 indicating the best health level) and WOMAC (scale 0-68, 68 indicates maximum restriction) and performed the FCE. Correlations were calculated between all scores. Cross-tables were constructed using both questionnaires as diagnostic tests to identify work limitations. Subjects lifting \22.5 kg on the FCE-test 'lifting-low' were labeled as having physical work limitations. Diagnostic aspects at different cut-off scores for both questionnaires were analysed. Results Statistically significant correlations (Spearman's q 0.34-0.49) were found between questionnaire scores and lifting and carrying tests. Results of a diagnostic cross-table with cut-off point \60 on SF-36 'physical functioning' were: sensitivity 0.34, specificity 0.97 and positive predictive value (PV?) 0.95. Cut-off point C21 on WOMAC 'function' resulted in sensitivity 0.51, specificity 0.88 and PV? 0.88. Conclusion Low self-reported function scores on SF-36 and WOMAC diagnosed subjects with limitations on the FCE. However, high scores did not guarantee performance without physical work limitations. These results are specific to the tested persons with early OA, in populations with a different prevalence of limitations, different diagnostic values will be found. FCE may be indicated to help clinicians to assess actual work capacity.

Identifying cut‐off scores for interpretation of the Heart Failure Impact Questionnaire

“…The 2-week test-retest reliability coefficients were 0.66 and 0.94, respectively. The cut-off point of SF-36 score ≥60 was suggested as good physical function (Bieleman et al, 2009;Garratt, Ruta, Abdalla, & Russell, 1994;Ware & Sherbourne, 1992). Thus, each patient's HRQOL was measured by using a generic instrument (SF-36) and an HF-specific instrument (MLHFQ).…”

Measures of physical performance assessments: Self‐Paced Walk Test (SPWT), Stair Climb Test (SCT), Six‐Minute Walk Test (6MWT), Chair Stand Test (CST), Timed Up & Go (TUG), Sock Test, Lift and Carry Test (LCT), and Car Task

“…Self‐reported functional status as predictor of observed functional capacity in subjects with early osteoarthritis of the hip and knee: a diagnostic study in the CHECK cohort. J Occup Rehabil 2009;19:345–53 (130).…”

Sleep Quality Among Iranian Hemodialysis: A Multicenter Study

“…To obtain this cutoff point, we statistically depicted receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve using physical component summary (PCS; one of the two components of SF-36 questionnaire), because the association between PCS and SQ have been recognized previously ( 6 ). As we searched, we found a study ( 11 ) that had evaluated different cutoff points for PCS and finally, had chosen 60 as a cutoff score with 11.1 as likelihood ratio of positive test. Thus, using cutoff point of 60 for PCS, we drew ROC curve.…”