4.6 Article

Responsiveness and ceiling effects of the Forgotten Joint Score-12 following total hip arthroplasty

期刊

BONE & JOINT RESEARCH
卷 5, 期 3, 页码 87-91

出版社

BRITISH EDITORIAL SOC BONE JOINT SURGERY
DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.53.2000480

关键词

hip arthroplasty; outcomes; PROM: forgotten joint score

资金

  1. Styker
  2. ARUK
  3. ORUK
  4. OTCF
  5. EPSRC
  6. RCSEd
  7. Styker/Biomet
  8. Stryker

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To assess the responsiveness and ceiling/floor effects of the Forgotten Joint Score -12 and to compare these with that of the more widely used Oxford Hip Score (OHS) in patients six and 12 months after primary total hip arthroplasty. Methods We prospectively collected data at six and 12 months following total hip arthroplasty from 193 patients undergoing surgery at a single centre. Ceiling effects are outlined with frequencies for patients obtaining the lowest or highest possible score. Change over time from six months to 12 months post-surgery is reported as effect size (Cohen's d). Results The mean OHS improved from 40.3 (sd 7.9) at six months to 41.9 (sd 7.2) at 12 months. The mean FJS-12 improved from 56.8 (sd 30.1) at six months to 62.1 (sd 29.0) at 12 months. At six months, 15.5% of patients reached the best possible score (48 points) on the OHS and 8.3% obtained the best score (100 points) on the FJS-12. At 12 months, this percentage increased to 20.8% for the OHS and to 10.4% for the FJS-12. In terms of the effect size (Cohen's d), the change was d = 0.10 for the OHS and d = 0.17 for the FJS-12. Conclusions The FJS-12 is more responsive to change between six and 12 months following total hip arthroplasty than is the OHS, with the measured ceiling effect for the OHS twice that of the FJS-12. The difference in effect size of change results in substantial differences in required sample size if aiming to detect change between these two time points. This has important implications for powering clinical trials with patient-reported measures as the primary outcome.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据