What is the Responsiveness and Respondent Burden of the New Knee Society Score?

Maniar, Rajesh N.; Maniar, Parul R.; Chanda, Debashish; Gajbhare, Dnyaneshwar; Chouhan, Toral

doi:10.1007/s11999-017-5338-1

Cited by 19 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Compared with those observed for legacy measures from the present study as well as data from the literature for the KOOS (7 to 12 minutes), the IKDC (3 to 5 minutes), the SF12 (4 minutes), and the MARS (2 to 3 minutes), the PF CAT demonstrated clear superiority in both duration to completion and question burden. 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 The BRS, while easily administered, does not correlate well with most PROMs because of its narrow domain focus.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of PROMIS Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Depression Computer Adaptive Tests Instruments in Patients Undergoing Meniscal Surgery

Nwachukwu

Patel

et al. 2020

Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To compare the performance of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF), pain interference (PIF), and depression computer adaptive tests (CAT) relative to legacy instruments in patients undergoing meniscal surgery. Methods Patients scheduled to undergo meniscal surgery completed legacy knee function PROMs (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS] subscores), Marx Activity Rating Scale (MARS), Veterans-Rand 12 (VR12), Short Form 12 (SF12), and the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) alongside PROMIS PF, PIF, and Depression preoperatively. Spearman rank correlations were calculated, and score distributions were examined for floor and ceiling effects. Results 152 patients (46.6 ± 14.9 years, 67.1% male) completed PROMs for appropriate inclusion. PROMIS PF yielded high-moderate to high correlations with the IKDC and KOOS subscales ( r = 0.61 to 0.73), demonstrating similar performance to the IKDC. PROMIS PIF demonstrated moderately high-moderate to high correlations with the IKDC, KOOS subscales, VR-12 Physical Component Score (PCS), and SF12 PCS ( r = 0.62 to 0.71), performing comparably to KOOS Pain ( r = 0.55 to 0.92). PROMIS Depression demonstrated moderate to high-moderate correlations with the mental health legacies ( r = 0.46 to 0.66). Significant ceiling effects were observed for MARS (n = 29, 18.8%), and significant floor effects were exhibited by PROMIS Depression (n = 38, 25%) and MARS (n = 27, 17.6%). Conclusion The PROMIS PF, PIF CAT, and Depression instruments exhibit comparable performance profiles relative to legacy knee PROMs. PROMIS PF and PIF demonstrated no floor and ceiling effects, whereas PROMIS Depression exhibited a significant relative floor effect. PROMIS PF and PIF may be appropriately used to establish functional baselines preoperatively. Level of Evidence IV, diagnostic case series.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of PROMIS Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Depression Computer Adaptive Tests Instruments in Patients Undergoing Meniscal Surgery

Nwachukwu

Patel

et al. 2020

Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…following a uniform procedure and standard postoperative protocol, as detailed in our earlier work. 5 Of the 148 patients, 32 were men and 116 were women. Their ages ranged from 49 to 86 years (average: 68 years); body mass index (BMI) ranged from 19 to 49 kg/m 2 (average: 30 kg/m 2 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It consisted of the same demographic information and observer-assessed objective knee score (0-100 points) as the original NKSS. 5 Its patient-reported subjective knee score was shorter consisting of 108 points (as against 155 points in the original NKSS) by reducing the number of questions posed to the patient to 10 (as against 30 in the original NKSS). The maximum SF-NKSS was thus 208 points, a higher score representing a better knee status.…”

Section: Derived Sf-nkssmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…So, we have undertaken in this present study to evaluate the responsiveness of derived SF-NKSS in a single large longitudinal cohort of 148 patients and compared the change of scores from the preoperative stage to more than 1 year postoperatively. This same 148-patient cohort was analyzed in our previous publication 5 for NKSS, wherein we had reported NKSS to be responsive and correlated with Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and 12-item Short-Form Survey (SF-12) scores but with increased respondent burden. We had thus suggested that its short-form version be evaluated, which we have attempted to do in this present study.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Short-Form New Knee Society Score: What Is Its Responsiveness and Convergent Validity with Other Scores?

Maniar

Chanda³

et al. 2020

J Knee Surg

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The short-form version of New Knee Society Score (SF-NKSS) was designed with a purpose to reduce respondent burden. Literature review revealed only one report by Scuderi et al on responsiveness of derived SF-NKSS, but it was evaluated in two separate patient cohorts pre- and postsurgery. Our study had evaluated responsiveness and convergent validity of derived SF-NKSS in a single, large patient cohort followed longitudinally from preoperative status to over 1 year. Our database of 148 knee arthroplasty patients operated by the same surgeon, whose NKSS, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), and 12-item Short-Form Survey (SF-12) scores were prospectively collected preoperatively and postoperatively at 3 and 12 months for a study published earlier, was analyzed for derived SF-NKSS. Responsiveness was evaluated by determining the effect size, standardized response mean (SRM), and ceiling and floor effects. For convergent validity, Pearson's correlation coefficient was used. SF-NKSS was found to be most responsive with the largest effect size and SRM at 3 months (3.02 and 2.50, respectively) and at 12 months (3.58 and 2.92, respectively) with no ceiling or floor effect. SF-NKSS was followed in responsiveness by original NKSS, WOMAC, and SF-12 in a descending order. Convergent validity showed a strong correlation (r = 0.8–1.0; p < 0.001) of SF-NKSS with NKSS and a moderate to strong correlation (r = 0.5–0.6; p < 0.001) with WOMAC and SF-12. We concluded that SF-NKSS is a reliable, highly responsive tool for post-total knee replacement evaluation. It also has the ability to register improvement in the patient's recovery, which can continue even after 1 year. We found that the SF-NKSS can be used interchangeably with the original NKSS.

show abstract

“…the KSS recognized this and has published a short version [17,23]. This version should also be validated in a future study for German-speaking populations.…”

Section: Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Translation and Validation of the German New Knee Society Scoring System

Kayaalp

Keller

Fitz

et al. 2018

Clin Orthop Relat Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In 2011 the Knee Society Score (KSS) was revised to include patient expectations, satisfaction, and physical activities as patient-reported outcomes. Since the new KSS has become a widely used method to evaluate patient status after TKA, we sought to translate and validate it for German-speaking populations.Questions/purposes After translation of the new KSS into German using established guidelines, we sought to test the new German version for (1) validity; (2) responsiveness; and (3) reliability. Methods The new KSS form was translated and adapted according to the available guidelines. The final version was used to validate the German version of the new KSS One of the authors certifies that he (TK) has received benefits, during the study period, in an amount of less than USD 10,000 from Medizinischen Hochschule (Brandenburg, Germany). One of the authors certifies that he (WF) has received royalties and stock options, during the study period, in an amount of USD 100,001 to USD 1,000,000 from Conformis (Billerica, MA, USA), outside the submitted work. One of the authors certifies that he (GRS) has received royalties and consulting fees, during the study period, in an amount of USD 100,001 to USD 1,000,000, from Zimmer Biomet (Warsaw, IN, USA); research support and consulting fees, during the study period, in an amount of USD 10,000 to USD 100,000 from Pacira (Parsippany, NJ, USA); consulting fees in an amount of less than USD 10,000 from Medtronic (Minneapolis, MN, USA); and an honorarium during the study period in an amount of less than USD 10,000 from Acelity (San Antonio, TX, USA), outside the submitted work. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® neither advocates nor endorses the use of any treatment, drug, or device. Readers are encouraged to always seek additional information, including FDA approval status, of any drug or device before clinical use. Each author certifies that his institution approved the human protocol for this investigation and that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research.

show abstract

What is the Responsiveness and Respondent Burden of the New Knee Society Score?

Cited by 19 publications

References 16 publications

Performance of PROMIS Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Depression Computer Adaptive Tests Instruments in Patients Undergoing Meniscal Surgery

Performance of PROMIS Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Depression Computer Adaptive Tests Instruments in Patients Undergoing Meniscal Surgery

Short-Form New Knee Society Score: What Is Its Responsiveness and Convergent Validity with Other Scores?

Translation and Validation of the German New Knee Society Scoring System

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About