본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient‑acceptable symptom state (PASS) in patients who have undergone total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

Filippo Migliorini|Nicola Maffulli|Luise Schäfer|Francesco Simeone|Andreas Bell|Ulf Krister Hofmann
대한슬관절학회 (Korean Knee Society)|2024.12|Knee Surgery and Related Research|제36권 |pp. 3-3|DOI 10.1186/s43019-024-00210-z

2

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

KneePASSPROMsArthroplastySCBPatient-reported outcome measuresMCID

초록

Background: The present systematic review investigated the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) of several frequent and established PROMs used to assess patients who have undergone TKA. This study was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA statement. Methods: In September 2023, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were accessed with no time constraint All clinical studies investigating tools to assess the clinical relevance of PROMs used to evaluate patients having received TKA were accessed. Only studies which evaluated the MCID, PASS, or SCB were eligible. The PROMs of interest were the Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12), the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and its related subscales activity of daily living (ADL), pain, quality of life (QoL), sports and recreational activities, and symptoms, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) score, the Knee Society Score (KSS) and related function score, and the Short Form-12 (SF-12) and Short Form-36 (SF-36). Results: Data from 29,737 patients were collected. The overall risk of bias was low to moderate. The great variability of thresholds for MCID, SCB and PASS between questionnaires but also between investigated aspects was noted, whereby MCIDs for the SF-36 appear lower than for knee-specific questionnaires. Conclusion: Despite its critical role from a patient's perspective, the dimension of SCB is still neglected in the literature. Moreover, thresholds for the different concepts need to be condition-specific. We encourage authors to specifically report such data in future studies and to adhere to previously reported definitions to allow future comparison.

Abstract

Background: The present systematic review investigated the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) of several frequent and established PROMs used to assess patients who have undergone TKA. This study was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA statement. Methods: In September 2023, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were accessed with no time constraint All clinical studies investigating tools to assess the clinical relevance of PROMs used to evaluate patients having received TKA were accessed. Only studies which evaluated the MCID, PASS, or SCB were eligible. The PROMs of interest were the Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12), the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and its related subscales activity of daily living (ADL), pain, quality of life (QoL), sports and recreational activities, and symptoms, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) score, the Knee Society Score (KSS) and related function score, and the Short Form-12 (SF-12) and Short Form-36 (SF-36). Results: Data from 29,737 patients were collected. The overall risk of bias was low to moderate. The great variability of thresholds for MCID, SCB and PASS between questionnaires but also between investigated aspects was noted, whereby MCIDs for the SF-36 appear lower than for knee-specific questionnaires. Conclusion: Despite its critical role from a patient's perspective, the dimension of SCB is still neglected in the literature. Moreover, thresholds for the different concepts need to be condition-specific. We encourage authors to specifically report such data in future studies and to adhere to previously reported definitions to allow future comparison.

참고문헌 (61)

  1. Hunter DJ, "Osteoarthritis in 2020 and beyond : a Lancet Commission", Lancet, 396, pp.1711~1712 (2020)
  2. Hardenberg M, "The economic burden of knee and hip osteoarthritis : absenteeism and costs in the Dutch workforce", BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 23, pp.364~ (2022)
  3. Gunaratne R, "Patient dissatisfaction following total knee arthroplasty : a systematic review of the literature", J Arthroplasty, 32, pp.3854~3860 (2017)
  4. Pailhe R, "Total knee arthroplasty : latest robotics implantation techniques", Orthop Traumatol Surg Res, 107, pp.102780~ (2021)
  5. Kobayashi A, "Comparison of analog 2D and digital 3D preoperative templating for predicting implant size in total knee arthroplasty", Comput Aided Surg, 17, pp.96~101 (2012)
  6. Clary CW, "The influence of total knee arthroplasty geometry on mid-flexion stability : an experimental and finite element study", J Biomech, 46, pp.1351~1357 (2013)
  7. Koh YG, "Effect of geometric variations on tibiofemoral surface and post-cam design of normal knee kinematics restoration", J Exp Orthop, 5, pp.53~ (2018)
  8. Wakelin E, "Implant geometry and alignment-driven variability in post-total knee arthroplasty kinematics", Orthopaedic Proc, 101-B, pp.140~ (2019)
  9. Karasavvidis T, "Current concepts in alignment in total knee arthroplasty", J Arthroplasty, 38, pp.S29~S37 (2023)
  10. Choi YJ, "Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty", Knee Surg Relat Res, 28, pp.1~15 (2016)
  11. Kennedy DM, "Assessing recovery and establishing prognosis following total knee arthroplasty", Phys Ther, 88, pp.22~32 (2008)
  12. Connelly JW, "Patient acceptable symptom state at 1 and 3 years after total knee arthroplasty : thresholds for the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score(KOOS)", J Bone Joint Surg Am, 101, pp.995~1003 (2019)
  13. Fisher RA, "Breakthroughs in statistics: methodology and distribution", pp.66~70 (1992), Springer New York
  14. Sterne JA, "Sifting the evidence-what’s wrong with significance tests?", BMJ, 322, pp.226~231 (2001)
  15. Button KS, "Power failure : why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience", Nat Rev Neurosci, 14, pp.365~376 (2013)
  16. Halpern SD, "The continuing unethical conduct of underpowered clinical trials", JAMA, 288, pp.358~362 (2002)
  17. Dettori JR, "P-value worship : is the idol significant?", Global Spine J, 9, pp.357~359 (2019)
  18. Guyatt G, "Measuring change over time : assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments", J Chronic Dis, 40, pp.171~178 (1987)
  19. Jaeschke R, "Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference", Control Clin Trials, 10, pp.407~415 (1989)
  20. Glassman SD, "Defining substantial clinical benefit following lumbar spine arthrodesis", J Bone Joint Surg Am, 90, pp.1839~1847 (2008)
  21. Tubach F, "Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis : the patient acceptable symptom state", Ann Rheum Dis, 64, pp.34~37 (2005)
  22. "The 2011 Oxford CEBM Levels of Evidence" (2011)[URL]
  23. Page MJ, "The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews", BMJ, 372, pp.n71~ (2021)
  24. Behrend H, "The “forgotten joint” as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty: validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure", J Arthroplasty, 27(430–6), pp.e1~ (2012)
  25. Dawson D, "Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research", pp.4554~4555 (2014), Springer Netherlands
  26. Roos EM, "Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score(KOOS)–development of a self-administered outcome measure", J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 28, pp.88~96 (1998)
  27. Bellamy N, "Validation study of WOMAC : a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee", J Rheumatol, 15, pp.1833~1840 (1988)
  28. Bellamy N, "A preliminary evaluation of the dimensionality and clinical importance of pain and disability in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee", Clin Rheumatol, 5, pp.231~241 (1986)
  29. Insall JN, "Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 248, pp.13~14 (1989)
  30. Ware J Jr, "A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey : construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity", Med Care, 34, pp.220~233 (1996)
  31. Patel AA, "The 36-item short form", J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 15, pp.126~134 (2007)
  32. Tarlov AR, "The Medical Outcomes Study. An application of methods for monitoring the results of medical care", JAMA, 262, pp.925~930 (1989)
  33. Ware JE Jr, "The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection", Med Care, 30, pp.473~483 (1992)
  34. Cumpston M, "Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions", Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 10, pp.CD000142~ (2019)
  35. Sterne JA, "ROBINS-I : a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions", BMJ, 355, pp.i4919~ (2016)
  36. McGuinness LA, "Risk-of-bias VISualization(robvis) : an R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments", Res Synth Methods, 12, pp.55~61 (2021)
  37. Cumpston M, "Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions", Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 10, pp.ED000142~ (2019)[DOI]
  38. Ayers DC, "Age-related differences in pain, function, and quality of life following primary total knee arthroplasty : results from a FORCE-TJR(Function and Outcomes Research for Comparative Effectiveness in Total Joint Replacement)cohort", J Arthroplasty, 38, pp.S169~S176 (2023)
  39. Carender CN, "Outcomes vary significantly using a tiered approach to define success after total knee arthroplasty", J Arthroplasty, 37, pp.1266~1272 (2022)
  40. Clement ND, "The minimal clinically important difference in the Oxford knee score and Short Form 12 score after total knee arthroplasty", Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 22, pp.1933~1939 (2014)
  41. Clement ND, "What is the minimum clinically important difference for the WOMAC index after TKA?", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 476, pp.2005~2014 (2018)
  42. Clement ND, "Meaningful values in the Forgotten Joint Score after total knee arthroplasty", Bone Joint J, 103-B, pp.846~854 (2021)
  43. Clement ND, "Meaningful values in the Short Form Health Survey-36 after total knee arthroplasty—an alternative to the EuroQol five-dimension index as a measure for health-related quality of life : minimal clinically important difference, minimal important change, patient-acceptable symptom state thresholds, and responsiveness", Bone Joint Res, 11, pp.477~483 (2022)
  44. Escobar A, "Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after total knee replacement", Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 15, pp.273~280 (2007)
  45. Escobar A, "Total knee replacement; minimal clinically important differences and responders", Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 21, pp.2006~2012 (2013)
  46. Gousopoulos L, "Custom total knee arthroplasty combined with personalised alignment grants 94% patient satisfaction at minimum follow-up of 2 years", Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 31, pp.1276~1283 (2023)
  47. Heijbel S, "Substantial clinical benefit and patient acceptable symptom states of the Forgotten Joint Score 12 after primary knee arthroplasty", Acta Orthop, 93, pp.158~163 (2022)
  48. Ingelsrud LH, "Which Oxford Knee Score level represents a satisfactory symptom state after undergoing a total knee replacement?", Acta Orthop, 92, pp.85~90 (2021)
  49. Lizaur-Utrilla A, "Minimal clinically important differences and substantial clinical benefits for Knee Society Scores", Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 28, pp.1473~1478 (2020)
  50. Maxwell JL, "Does clinically important change in function after knee replacement guarantee good absolute function? The multicenter osteoarthritis study", J Rheumatol, 41, pp.60~64 (2014)
  51. Nishimoto J, "Minimal clinically important differences in short-term postoperative Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score(KOOS)after total knee arthroplasty : a prospective cohort study", J Orthop Trauma Rehabil (2023)
  52. Chahal J, "The clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptomatic state for commonly used patient-reported outcomes after knee cartilage repair", Am J Sports Med, 49, pp.193~199 (2021)
  53. Ogura T, "The minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit in the patient-reported outcome measures of patients undergoing osteochondral allograft transplantation in the knee", Cartilage, 12, pp.42~50 (2021)
  54. Wang D, "Clinically meaningful improvement after treatment of cartilage defects of the knee with osteochondral grafts", Am J Sports Med, 47, pp.71~81 (2019)
  55. Beiene ZA, "Defining a successful total knee arthroplasty : a systematic review of metrics of clinically important changes", Arthroplasty, 5, pp.25~ (2023)
  56. Lyman S, "What are the minimal and substantial improvements in the HOOS and KOOS and JR versions after total joint replacement?", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 476, pp.2432~2441 (2018)
  57. Haydel A, "Achieving validated thresholds for clinically meaningful change on the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score after total knee arthroplasty : findings from a university-based orthopaedic tertiary care safety net practice", J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev, 3, pp.e00142~ (2019)
  58. Singh V, "Patient acceptable symptom state for the forgotten joint score in primary total knee arthroplasty", J Arthroplasty, 37, pp.1557~1561 (2022)
  59. Macri EM, "Meaningful thresholds for patient-reported outcomes following interventions for anterior cruciate ligament tear or traumatic meniscus injury : a systematic review for the OPTIKNEE consensus", Br J Sports Med, 56, pp.1432~1444 (2022)
  60. Cronstrom A, "Interpretation threshold values for patient-reported outcomes in patients participating in a digitally delivered first-line treatment program for hip or knee osteoarthritis", Osteoarthr Cartil Open, 5, pp.100375~ (2023)
  61. Murphy GT, "How does the use of quantified gap-balancing affect component positioning and limb alignment in robotic total knee arthroplasty using functional alignment philosophy? A comparison of two robotic platforms", Int Orthop, 47, pp.1221~1232 (2023)

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (47건)

Preserving coronal knee alignment of the knee (CPAK) in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty correlates with superior patient-reported outcomesHyuk‑Soo Han, 윤국로, Sung Eun Kim, 이명철, 이재민pp. 1-1Higher rates of fully preserved posterior cruciate ligament in total knee arthroplasty using a double tibial cut: a prospective randomized controlled trialFrancesca Romana Ripani, Gianluca Cinotti, Giuseppe Giannicola, Giuseppe La Torre, Beatrice Perciballipp. 2-2Enhanced deep learning model enables accurate alignment measurement across diverse institutional imaging protocols남준우, 김종근, 김중일, Sung Eun Kim, 노두현pp. 4-4Efficacy and safety of different bupivacaine concentrations in periarticular infiltration combined with adductor canal block for bilateral total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trialSukanya Dej‑arkom, Rapeepat Narkbunnam, Somruedee Chatsirichareonkul, Weerawadee Chandranipapongse, Pawinee Pangthipampai, Arissara Iamaroon, Suwida Tangchittam, Keerati Charoencholvanichpp. 5-5Efficacy of pulse oximetry for early diagnosis of pulmonary embolism after total knee arthroplastyHan-Kook Yoon, Joong-Won Ha, Hyun‑Cheol Oh, Sang‑Hoon Park, Ju-Hyung Yoopp. 6-6
원문 보기