Revisiting minimally important changes for the Oxford Hip and Knee scores

Abstract

Purpose A number of metrics and thresholds have been proposed to evaluate minimally meaningful change in the Oxford Hip and Oxford Knee scores (OHS and OKS). The study aim was to evaluate the impact of baseline scores on these metrics, and whether treatment success could be evaluated beyond these single metrics.

Patients & Methods The data were collated from the National Health Service in England including the OHS, OKS and a global transition item (GTI). Minimally important change (MIC) scores were derived and categorised by the GTI, baseline and post-operative score categories. These metrics were also evaluated against standard error of measurement (SEM).

Results A total of 387,524 records were extracted. Although the overall MIC were in-line with previous research, the results showed these measures varied by pre-operative scores. Few MIC estimates exceeded measurement error thresholds. Those that did were fell in the category of post-operative scores ≥ 30 for both instruments.

Conclusions The MIC for both the OHS and OKS are potentially unreliable single metrics for evaluating meaningful change. A combination of baseline, post-intervention and change scores may provide more a robust measure for the evaluation of patient outcomes and healthcare services.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This study did not receive any funding.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-tools-and-services/data-services/patient-reported-outcome-measures-proms#latest-provisional-data

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All data produced are available online at: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-tools-and-services/data-services/patient-reported-outcome-measures-proms#latest-provisional-data

Comments (0)

No login
gif