Validation of electronic administration of knee surveys among ACL-injured patients

Nguyen, Joseph; Marx, Robert G.; Hidaka, Chisa; Wilson, Sean; Lyman, Stephen

doi:10.1007/s00167-016-4189-8

Cited by 17 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Patient‐reported outcomes measures were completed either in person (pen and paper) or via the online portal PROmptus–Medical (DS PRIMA) with instructions matching the original paper version. The KOOS (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] >0.96) and IKDC (ICC 0.79) questionnaires have demonstrated test–retest reliability between paper and electronic formats.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient‐Reported Outcomes One to Five Years After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: The Effect of Combined Injury and Associations With Osteoarthritis Features Defined on Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Patterson

Culvenor

Barton

et al. 2020

Arthritis Care & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Persistent symptoms and poor quality of life (QoL) are common following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). We aimed to determine the influence of a combined ACL injury (i.e., concomitant meniscectomy and/or arthroscopic chondral defect at the time of ACLR and/or secondary injury/surgery to ACLR knee) and cartilage defects defined on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), bone marrow lesions (BMLs), and meniscal lesions on patient‐reported outcomes 1 to 5 years after ACLR. Methods A total of 80 participants (50 men; mean ± SD age 32 ± 14 years) completed the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) questionnaires as well as a 3T MRI assessment at 1 and 5 years after ACLR. Median patient‐reported outcome scores were compared between isolated and combined ACL injuries and with published normative values. Using multivariate regression, we evaluated the association between compartment‐specific MRI cartilage, BMLs, and meniscal lesions and patient‐reported outcomes at 1 and 5 years. Results Individuals with a combined injury had significantly worse scores in the KOOS subscale of function in sport and recreation (KOOS sport/rec) and in the IKDC questionnaire at 1 year, and worse scores in the KOOS subscales of pain (KOOS pain), symptoms (KOOS symptoms), and QoL (KOOS QoL) and in the IKDC questionnaire at 5 years compared to those with an isolated injury. Although no feature on MRI was associated with patient‐reported outcomes cross‐sectionally at 1 year, patellofemoral cartilage defects at 1 year were significantly associated with worse 5‐year KOOS symptoms (β = –9.79, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] –16.67, –2.91), KOOS sport/rec (β = –7.94, 95% CI –15.27, –0.61), KOOS QoL (β = –8.29, 95% CI –15.28, –1.29), and IKDC (β = –4.79, 95% CI –9.34, –0.24) scores. Patellofemoral cartilage defects at 5 years were also significantly associated with worse 5‐year KOOS symptoms (β = –6.86, 95% CI –13.49, –0.24) and KOOS QoL (β = –11.71, 95% CI –19.08, –4.33) scores. Conclusion Combined injury and patellofemoral cartilage defects shown on MRI are associated with poorer long‐term outcomes. Clinicians should be vigilant and aware of individuals with these injuries, as such individuals may benefit from targeted interventions to improve QoL and optimize symptoms.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient‐Reported Outcomes One to Five Years After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: The Effect of Combined Injury and Associations With Osteoarthritis Features Defined on Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Patterson

Culvenor

Barton

et al. 2020

Arthritis Care & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Authors reported good agreement between the 2 MOA for the Tegner and Marx activity scales, Lysholm Knee Scale, and the International Knee Documentation Committee, with ICCs ranging from .65 to .79. 3 The agreement between digital and paper MOA has also been established in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. It was found that a digitally delivered version of the Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity, the Global Health score, and a visual analog scale had ICCs above .95 for all 3 measures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…2 Similar results have been reported in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and anterior cruciate ligament injury. 3,4 Together, the research suggests that for musculoskeletal conditions, the time and cost benefits of using a digital MOA do not result in a trade-off to the psychometric properties of PROs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

Does the Method of Administration Affect Reliability of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure?

Burcal¹,

Chung

Johnston

et al. 2020

Journal of Sport Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Region-specific patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are commonly used in rehabilitation medicine. Digital versions of PROs may be implemented into electronic medical records and are also commonly used in research, but the validity of this method of administration (MOA) must be established. Purpose: To determine the agreement between and compare the test–retest reliability of a paper version (FAAM-P) and digital version (FAAM-D) of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM). Study Design: Randomized, nonblinded, crossover observational study. Methods: A total of 90 adults were randomized to complete the FAAM-P or FAAM-D first, and then completed the second MOA (first day [D1]). The FAAM-D was a digital adaptation of both FAAM-P subscales on Qualtrics. Identical test procedures were completed 1 week later (D2). Data were removed if a participant scored 100% on both MOA, reported injury between D1 and D2, or did not complete both MOA. Agreement was assessed on 46 participants between the 2 MOA using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) at D1. There was good-to-excellent test–retest reliability for the FAAM activities of daily living. Results: The authors observed good agreement between the FAAM-P and FAAM-D for the activities of daily living (ICC = .88) and sport scales (ICC = .87). Test–retest reliability was good-to-excellent for the FAAM activities of daily living (FAAM-P: ICC = .87; FAAM-D: ICC = .89) and sport (FAAM-P: ICC = .71; FAAM-D: ICC = .91). Conclusions: The MOA does not appear to affect the responses on the FAAM; however, the authors observed slightly higher reliability on the FAAM-D. The FAAM-D is sufficient to be used for generating practice-based evidence in rehabilitation medicine.

show abstract

“…We recommend that work with key stakeholders including surgeons, therapists, and patients and their carers is needed to ensure that the measure is appropriate and can be effectively used across different conditions. Key design features will include ease of use and digital solutions, as electronic patientreported outcomes have been shown to be useful in similar patient groups [44].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods for assessment of patient adherence to removable orthoses used after surgery or trauma to the appendicular skeleton: a systematic review

Davies

Yeomans

Tolkien

et al. 2020

Trials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Patient adherence to treatment is a key determinant of outcome for healthcare interventions. Whilst non-adherence has been well evidenced in settings such as drug therapy, information regarding patient adherence to orthoses, particularly in the acute setting, is lacking. The aim of this systematic review was to identify, summarise, and critically appraise reported methods for assessing adherence to removable orthoses in adults following acute injury or surgery. Methods: Comprehensive searches of the Ovid versions of MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, Central, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and SPORTDiscus identified complete papers published in English between 1990 and September 2018 reporting measurement of adherence to orthoses in adults following surgery or trauma to the appendicular skeleton. Only primary studies with reference to adherence in the title/abstract were included to maintain the focus of the review. Data extraction included study design, sample size, study population, orthosis studied, and instructions for use. Details of methods for assessing adherence were extracted, including instrument/method used, frequency of completion, number of items (if applicable), and score (if any) used to evaluate adherence overall. Validity and reliability of identified methods were assessed together with any conclusions drawn between adherence and outcomes in the study. Results: Seventeen papers (5 randomised trials, 10 cohort studies, and 2 case series) were included covering upper (n = 13) and lower (n = 4) limb conditions. A variety of methods for assessing adherence were identified, including questionnaires (n = 10) with single (n = 3) or multiple items (n = 7), home diaries (n = 4), and discussions with the patient (n = 3). There was no consistency in the target behaviour assessed or in the timing or frequency of assessment or the scoring systems used. None of the measures was validated for use in the target population.

show abstract

Validation of electronic administration of knee surveys among ACL-injured patients

Abstract: II.

Cited by 17 publications

References 31 publications

Patient‐Reported Outcomes One to Five Years After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: The Effect of Combined Injury and Associations With Osteoarthritis Features Defined on Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Patient‐Reported Outcomes One to Five Years After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: The Effect of Combined Injury and Associations With Osteoarthritis Features Defined on Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Does the Method of Administration Affect Reliability of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure?

Methods for assessment of patient adherence to removable orthoses used after surgery or trauma to the appendicular skeleton: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About