Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

OBJECTIVES: To present estimates of clinically meaningful or minimal important changes for the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) after joint replacement surgery. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Secondary data analysis of the NHS patient-reported outcome measures data set that included 82,415 patients listed for hip replacement surgery and 94,015 patients listed for knee replacement surgery was performed. RESULTS: Anchor-based methods revealed that meaningful change indices at the group level [minimal important change (MIC)], for example in cohort studies, were ∼ 11 points for the OHS and ∼ 9 points for the OKS. For assessment of individual patients, receiver operating characteristic analysis produced MICs of 8 and 7 points for OHS and OKS, respectively. Additionally, the between group minimal important difference (MID), which allows the estimation of a clinically relevant difference in change scores from baseline when comparing two groups, that is, for clinical trials, was estimated to be ∼ 5 points for both the OKS and the OHS. The distribution-based minimal detectable change (MDC90) estimates for the OKS and OHS were 4 and 5 points, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study has produced and discussed estimates of minimal important change/difference for the OKS/OHS. These estimates should be used in the power calculations and the interpretation of studies using the OKS and OHS. The MDC90 (∼ 4 points OKS and ∼ 5 points OHS) represents the smallest possible detectable change for each of these instruments, thus indicating that any lower value would fall within measurement error.

Original publication

DOI

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.08.009

Type

Journal article

Journal

J Clin Epidemiol

Publication Date

01/2015

Volume

68

Pages

73 - 79

Keywords

Hip replacement, Knee replacement, Minimal important change, Minimal important difference, Responder definition, Study designs, Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip, Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee, Cohort Studies, Female, Health Status Indicators, Humans, Male, Treatment Outcome