Outcome Assessment in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal

Lange, Toni; Rataj, Elisabeth; Kopkow, Christian; Lützner, Jörg; Günther, Klaus‐Peter; Schmitt, Jochen

doi:10.1016/j.arth.2016.09.014

Cited by 35 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 136 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The first and the second questionnaire (both specifically developed for this study) contained the three question blocks (Additional file 1). The treatment goals were selected based on a systematic literature review on the use of measurement instruments and outcome domains in studies with OA patients undergoing TKA [27]. Each goal belonged to one of the 19 domains "pain", "range of motion (ROM)", "strength", "stability", "malalignment", "physical function", "walking distance", "walking stairs", "activity of daily life", "employability", "physical activity", "sex life", "quality of life", "global health status", "participation in social life", "implant survival", "no side effects", "duration of hospitalization" and "preventing secondary impairments".…”

Section: Questionnaire Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of different rating scales for the use in Delphi studies: different scales lead to different consensus and show different test-retest reliability

Lange

Kopkow

Lützner

et al. 2020

BMC Med Res Methodol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Consensus-orientated Delphi studies are increasingly used in various areas of medical research using a variety of different rating scales and criteria for reaching consensus. We explored the influence of using three different rating scales and different consensus criteria on the results for reaching consensus and assessed the test-retest reliability of these scales within a study aimed at identification of global treatment goals for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods: We conducted a two-stage study consisting of two surveys and consecutively included patients scheduled for TKA from five German hospitals. Patients were asked to rate 19 potential treatment goals on different rating scales (threepoint, five-point, nine-point). Surveys were conducted within a 2 week period prior to TKA, order of questions (scales and treatment goals) was randomized. Results: Eighty patients (mean age 68 ± 10 years; 70% females) completed both surveys. Different rating scales (threepoint, five-point and nine-point rating scale) lead to different consensus despite moderate to high correlation between rating scales (r = 0.65 to 0.74). Final consensus was highly influenced by the choice of rating scale with 14 (three-point), 6 (five-point), 15 (nine-point) out of 19 treatment goals reaching the pre-defined 75% consensus threshold. The number of goals reaching consensus also highly varied between rating scales for other consensus thresholds. Overall, concordance differed between the three-point (percent agreement [p] = 88.5%, weighted kappa [k] = 0.63), five-point (p = 75.3%, k = 0.47) and nine-point scale (p = 67.8%, k = 0.78). Conclusion: This study provides evidence that consensus depends on the rating scale and consensus threshold within one population. The test-retest reliability of the three rating scales investigated differs substantially between individual treatment goals. This variation in reliability can become a potential source of bias in consensus studies. In our setting aimed at capturing patients' treatment goals for TKA, the three-point scale proves to be the most reasonable choice, as its translation into the clinical context is the most straightforward among the scales. Researchers conducting Delphi studies should be aware that final consensus is substantially influenced by the choice of rating scale and consensus criteria.

show abstract

Section: Questionnaire Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of different rating scales for the use in Delphi studies: different scales lead to different consensus and show different test-retest reliability

Lange

Kopkow

Lützner

et al. 2020

BMC Med Res Methodol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Über das funktionelle und von Patienten berichtete Ergebnis ist jedoch außerhalb von Studien (und somit für die überwiegende Anzahl der versorgten Patienten) wenig bekannt. Erschwerend kommt die Tatsache hinzu, dass auch in Studien unterschiedliche Ergebnisse mit unterschiedlichen Messinstrumenten und zu unterschiedliche Zeitpunkten erhoben werden und die Studienergebnisse somit nur bedingt vergleichbar sind [5]. Daher gibt es z.…”

Section: Hintergrundunclassified

Ergebnismessung in der Hüft- und Knieendoprothetik – Empfehlung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Endoprothetik (AE)

Lützner

Niemeier

Calließ³

et al. 2020

Z Orthop Unfall

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…There is some evidence to indicate the existence of a COS can improve outcome reporting in clinical trials of rheumatologic conditions, 77 , 78 but there is also some evidence suggesting that COSs have not made an impact. 79 , 80 Research in this area is lacking and it should be put soon in the research agenda of COS methodologists.…”

Section: Core Outcome Sets For Other Conditions and Directions For Fumentioning

confidence: 99%

Core outcome sets for research and clinical practice

Chiarotto¹,

Ostelo²,

Turk

et al. 2017

Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Outcome Assessment in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal

Cited by 35 publications

References 136 publications

Comparison of different rating scales for the use in Delphi studies: different scales lead to different consensus and show different test-retest reliability

Comparison of different rating scales for the use in Delphi studies: different scales lead to different consensus and show different test-retest reliability

Ergebnismessung in der Hüft- und Knieendoprothetik – Empfehlung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Endoprothetik (AE)

Core outcome sets for research and clinical practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About