ArticleArthroplasty today2025
Does Achieving the Minimal Clinically Important Difference in the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement at 1 Year Postoperative Predict Satisfaction Following Total Knee Arthroplasty?
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lower baseline scores best predict achievement of the minimal clinically important difference after hip arthroscopy: A machine learning analysis from the Femoroacetabular Impingement RandomiSed Controlled Trial and embedded prospective cohort.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025Trial
- Determining the minimal clinically important difference for EQ-5D-5L scores in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
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
Background: Managed care systems have expressed interest in using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to determine surgical eligibility for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The relationship between PROMs and patient satisfaction following TKA is an area of active research. We asked (1) what is the relationship between patient satisfaction and achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in Knee Injury Osteoarthritis Outcomes Survey for Joint Replacement (KOOS, JR) at 1 year post-TKA, (2) what is the optimal change in KOOS, JR from preoperative to 1-year post-TKA that predicts patient satisfaction, and (3) are there additional preoperative factors that influence patient satisfaction following TKA. Methods: A retrospective cohort study analyzed patients who underwent primary TKA at a single ambulatory surgery center. Patients completed KOOS, JR and Veterans Rand 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) at baseline, 12 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. Satisfaction was assessed using a Likert scale. Logistic regression, best-fit modeling, and classification and regression tree analyses were performed to determine predictors of satisfaction. Results: Among 600 patients, 93.7% were satisfied. MCID was met in 71.8% of satisfied patients vs 44.7% of unsatisfied patients ( Conclusions: While KOOS, JR improvement correlated with satisfaction, achieving MCID was not a reliable predictor. Preoperative factors, including VR-12 mental component scores, may better identify patients likely to be satisfied post-TKA. Further research on larger cohorts is needed to refine PROM-based eligibility criteria.
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.