ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2022
Defining the minimal clinically important difference for the knee society score following revision total knee arthroplasty.
Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Determining the minimal clinically important difference for EQ-5D-5L scores in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Early migration following revision total knee arthroplasty with tibial metaphyseal cones: a 2-year prospective RSA cohort study of 25 patients.Acta orthopaedica · 2026Article
- Reply to determining MCID threshold for Knee Society Score to assess patient satisfaction in knee arthroplasty.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Etiology of total knee arthroplasty failure and functional outcome of revision knee arthroplasty.World journal of orthopedics · 2025Article
- The Relationship Between Achieving the Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient-Reported Satisfaction After Arthroscopic Superior Capsular Reconstruction With a Fascia Lata Autograft for Irreparable Massive Rotator Cuff Tears.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- The Minimum Clinically Important Difference of the Brief Pain Inventory During the Perioperative Period of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective Observational Study.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- A Single Surgeon Experience of Selective Patellar Resurfacing During Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 2024Article
- Preoperative high-intensity strength training combined with balance training can improve early outcomes after total knee arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- Acceptable migration of a fully cemented rotating hinge-type knee revision system measured in 20 patients with model-based RSA with a 2-year follow-up.Acta orthopaedica · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNo previous study has evaluated the MCID for revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study aimed to identify the MCID for the Knee Society Score (KSS), for revision TKA.
methodsProspectively collected data from 270 patients who underwent revision TKA at a single institution was analysed. Clinical assessment was performed preoperatively, at 6 months and 2 years using Knee Society Function Score (KSFS) and Knee (KSKS) Scores, and Oxford Knee Score (OKS). MCID was evaluated with a three-pronged methodology, using (1) anchor-based method with linear regression, (2) anchor-based method with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and area under curve (AUC), (3) distribution-based method with standard deviation (SD). The anchors used were improvement in OKS ≥ 5, patient satisfaction, and implant survivorship following revision TKA.
resultsThe cohort comprised 70% females, with mean age of 69.0 years, that underwent unilateral revision TKA. The MCID determined by anchor-based linear regression method using OKS was 6.3 for KSFS, and 6.6 for KSKS. The MCID determined by anchor-based ROC was between 15 and 20 for KSFS (AUC: satisfaction = 71.8%, survivorship = 61.4%) and between 33 and 34 for KSKS (AUC: satisfaction = 76.3%, survivorship = 67.1%). The MCID determined by distribution-based method of 0.5 SD was 11.7 for KSFS and 11.9 for KSKS.
conclusionThe MCID of 6.3 points for KSFS, and 6.6 points for KSKS, is a useful benchmark for future studies looking to compare revision against primary TKA outcomes. Clinically, the MCID between 15 and 20 for KSFS and between 33 and 34 for KSKS is a powerful tool for discriminating patients with successful outcomes after revision TKA. Implant survivorship is an objective and naturally dichotomous outcome measure that complements the subjective measure of patient satisfaction, which future MCID studies could consider utilizing as anchors in ROC. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34117505What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.