Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38313752›Full record

ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2024

Establishing the Minimally Important Difference for the KOOS-Joint Replacement and PROMIS Global-10 in Patients After Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Tyler J Spiering, Andrew D Firth, Christos Mousoulis, Brian R Hallstrom, Joel J Gagnier

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. What constitutes important change in individual PROMIS-10 global health items in patients with high-impact chronic pain: a qualitative interview study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Tyler J SpieringDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Andrew D FirthDepartment of Surgery, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Christos MousoulisDivision of Experimental Surgery, Centre for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Brian R HallstromDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Joel J GagnierDepartment of Surgery, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USWestern University · CAMcGill University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Despite the overall prevalence and success of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), a significant portion of patients are dissatisfied with their outcomes. Purpose: To assess the responsiveness and determine the minimally important difference (MID) of 2 patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)-the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Joint Replacement (KOOS-JR) and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global-10 (PROMIS 10)-in patients after TKA. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Included were patients who underwent TKA from August 2015 through August 2019 and completed baseline and postoperative KOOS-JR and PROMIS 10 surveys. The PROMIS 10 consists of 2 domains: physical health and mental health. Estimates for the reliable change index (RCI) and MID, using anchor-based and distribution-based methods, were calculated for each PROM. Regression modeling was used to determine whether patient and clinical factors predicted MID thresholds or MID achievement. Results: A total of 1315 patients were included. Distribution-based MIDs, calculated using various methods from baseline scores, ranged from 19.3 to 31 for the KOOS-JR, and the RCI was 4.38. Of these patients, 293 (22.3%) demonstrated small or moderate improvement, and this cohort was included in the calculation of anchor-based MIDs. The anchor-based MIDs were 16.9 and 24.3 at 3-month and 1-year follow-up, respectively, and 66% of patients achieved the MID at 12 months. Higher preoperative PROM score, male sex, non-White race, and current smoker status were predictive of failing to achieve the anchor-based MID for KOOS-JR at 1 year postoperatively ( Conclusion: The study results demonstrated relevant values for interpretation of the KOOS-JR and PROMIS 10. While patient demographics did not accurately predict which patients would achieve the MID, some potential factors predicting successful patient-reported outcomes after TKA were identified.

Indexed as

KOOS-JRminimally important differencepatient-reported outcomepatient satisfactiontotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID38313752
PMCPMC10838042
OpenAlexW4391486409

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.