ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2024
Self-assessed performance-based function test versus patient-reported outcome measures for knee and hip osteoarthritis.
Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhysical function constitutes a key component of outcome assessment for almost all osteoarthritis interventions. The aim was to compare physical function measured using a self-assessed performance-based test versus self-reported function using questionnaires among individuals with knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) participating in a digital exercise and education therapy.
methodsWe analysed data from individuals aged 40 + years participating in the digital program. We extracted data on the self-assessed 30-second chair stand test (30s CST) and the function subscales of Knee injury/Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score 12 (KOOS-12/HOOS-12) at enrolment and 3- (n = 10884) and 12-month (n = 3554) follow-ups. Participants completed Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain, EQ-5D-5L, and an external anchor: global rating of change scale. Correlations were assessed using the Spearman correlation coefficient, responsiveness using standardized response mean (SRM) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and agreement using weighted percent of agreement and weighted Gwet's agreement coefficient.
resultsCorrelations were weak between the 30s CST and KOOS-12/HOOS-12 function (r < 0.35 for raw and r < 0.20 for change scores). Correlations with NRS pain and EQ-5D-5L were stronger for the KOOS-12/HOOS-12 function subscale than for 30s CST. Greater internal (SRM > 1 vs. SRM < 0.5) and lower external responsiveness were observed for the 30s CST versus the KOOS-12/HOOS-12 function, even though external responsiveness was generally inadequate for both (the area under the ROC curves < 0.7). The direction of change was similar for the two function measures for about 70% of subjects with moderate agreement between them (weighted Gwet's agreement coefficient range 0.45 to 0.50).
conclusionWeak correlations and moderate agreements between function measured using performance-based test and self-reported using KOOS-12/HOOS-12 in people with knee or hip OA suggest that they may capture different aspects of functional abilities in this population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.