Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Simple Knee Value: a simple evaluation correlated to existing knee PROMs

  • KNEE
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

The Simple Knee Value (SKV) is an outcome score in which patients are asked to grade their knee function as a percentage of that of a normal knee. The primary aim of this study was to validate the SKV by measuring its correlation with existing knee-related PROMs.

Methods

This was a prospective study conducted at a teaching hospital to assess the SKV’s validity. The study enrolled 47 young patients (16–54 years old), 49 older patients (≥ 55 years) and 30 healthy controls. A paper questionnaire consisting of the Lysholm, IKDC, KOOS, WOMAC and SKV was given to subjects three times (enrolment, 1-month preoperative visit and 6 months postoperative visit). The criterion validity of the SKV was determined by correlating it to existing knee PROMs using the Spearman correlation coefficient (S). SKV test–retest reliability was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between two time points (initial consultation at enrolment and preoperative visit, reflecting the same clinical condition). Responsiveness to change was determined by comparing the SKV scores before and after surgery (enrolment consultation and 6 months postoperative). Discriminative ability was determined by comparing the SKV distribution in patients and controls.

Results

There was a strong and significant correlation between the SKV and the gold standard Lysholm, IKDC, KOOS and WOMAC in the younger patients and the older patients (p < 0.0001). The reliability between the SKV at the initial consultation and before surgery was excellent (ICC 0.862, 95% CI 0.765; 0.921) in the younger patients, and moderate (ICC 0.506, 95% CI 0.265; 0.688) in the older patients. The SKV was responsive to change in both patient groups (p < 0.0001 for the SKV before versus 6 months after surgery). Like the other knee-specific PROMs (p < 0.0001), the SKV was able to distinguish between patients and controls (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

The SKV is valid as it is significantly correlated to existing knee PROMs. It is also reliable, responsive to change and discriminating. Its simplicity gives it many advantages and it can be used by physicians in their daily practice.

Level of evidence

Level II.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bekkers JEJ, de Windt TS, Raijmakers NJH, Dhert WJA, Saris DBF (2009) Validation of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) for the treatment of focal cartilage lesions. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 17:1434–1439

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 15:1833–1840

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Briggs KK, Lysholm J, Tegner Y, Rodkey WG, Kocher MS, Steadman JR (2009) The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Lysholm score and Tegner activity scale for anterior cruciate ligament injuries of the knee: 25 years later. Am J Sports Med 37:890–897

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Casalino LP, Gans D, Weber R, Cea M, Tuchovsky A, Bishop TF, Miranda Y, Frankel BA, Ziehler KB, Wong MM, Evenson TB (2016) US Physician practices spend more than $15.4 billion annually to report quality measures. Health Aff Proj Hope 35:401–406

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chaory K, Poiraudeau S (2004) Rating scores for ACL ligamentoplasty. Ann Réadapt Médecine Phys Rev Sci Société Fr Rééduc Fonct Réadapt Médecine Phys 47:309–316

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Collins NJ, Misra D, Felson DT, Crossley KM, Roos EM (2011) Measures of knee function: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical Function Short Form (KOOS-PS), Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADL), Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Activity Rating Scale (ARS), and Tegner Activity Score (TAS). Arthritis Care Res 63(Suppl 11):S208–228

    Google Scholar 

  7. Flood AB, Lorence DP, Ding J, McPherson K, Black NA (1993) The role of expectations in patients’ reports of post-operative outcomes and improvement following therapy. Med Care 31:1043–1056

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Garratt AM, Brealey S, Gillespie WJ, DAMASK Trial Team (2004) Patient-assessed health instruments for the knee: a structured review. Rheumatol Oxf Engl 43:1414–1423

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gilbart MK, Gerber C (2007) Comparison of the subjective shoulder value and the Constant score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 16:717–721

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. van de Graaf VA, Wolterbeek N, Scholtes VAB, Mutsaerts ELAR, Poolman RW (2014) Reliability and validity of the IKDC, KOOS, and WOMAC for patients with meniscal injuries. Am J Sports Med 42:1408–1416

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. de Groot IB, Favejee MM, Reijman M, Verhaar JAN, Terwee CB (2008) The Dutch version of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score: a validation study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 6:16

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Guyatt GH, Bombardier C, Tugwell PX (1986) Measuring disease-specific quality of life in clinical trials. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J J Assoc Medicale Can 134:889–895

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL (1993) Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 118:622–629

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hambly K, Griva K (2010) IKDC or KOOS: which one captures symptoms and disabilities most important to patients who have undergone initial anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? Am J Sports Med 38:1395–1404

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hambly K, Griva K (2008) IKDC or KOOS? Which measures symptoms and disabilities most important to postoperative articular cartilage repair patients? Am J Sports Med 36:1695–1704

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hefti F, Müller W, Jakob RP, Stäubli HU (1993) Evaluation of knee ligament injuries with the IKDC form. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1:226–234

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL, Harner CD, Neyret P, Richmond JC, Shelbourne KD, International Knee Documentation Committee (2006) Responsiveness of the international knee documentation committee subjective knee form. Am J Sports Med 34:1567–1573

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kravitz RL, Callahan EJ, Paterniti D, Antonius D, Dunham M, Lewis CE (1996) Prevalence and sources of patients’ unmet expectations for care. Ann Intern Med 125:730–737

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mancuso CA, Sculco TP, Wickiewicz TL, Jones EC, Robbins L, Warren RF, Williams-Russo P (2001) Patients’ expectations of knee surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83:1005–1012

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Marot V, Murgier J, Carrozzo A, Reina N, Monaco E, Chiron P, Berard E, Cavaignac E (2019) Determination of normal KOOS and WOMAC values in a healthy population. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:541–548

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Marx RG (2003) Knee rating scales. Arthroscopy 19:1103–1108

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Oishi K, Tsuda E, Yamamoto Y, Maeda S, Sasaki E, Chiba D, Takahashi I, Nakaji S, Ishibashi Y (2016) The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score reflects the severity of knee osteoarthritis better than the revised Knee Society Score in a general Japanese population. Knee 23:35–42

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ornetti P, Parratte S, Gossec L, Tavernier C, Argenson J-N, Roos EM, Guillemin F, Maillefert JF (2008) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the French version of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in knee osteoarthritis patients. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 16:423–428

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Paradowski PT, Bergman S, Sundén-Lundius A, Lohmander LS, Roos EM (2006) Knee complaints vary with age and gender in the adult population. Population-based reference data for the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). BMC Musculoskelet Disord 7:38

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Peer MA, Lane J (2013) The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): a review of its psychometric properties in people undergoing total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 43:20–28

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Rodriguez-Merchan EC (2012) Review article: risk factors of infection following total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Hong Kong 20:236–238

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rolfson O, Bohm E, Franklin P, Lyman S, Denissen G, Dawson J, Dunn J, Eresian Chenok K, Dunbar M, Overgaard S, Garellick G, Lübbeke A, Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (2016) Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries Report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries Part II. Recommendations for selection, administration, and analysis. Acta Orthop 87(1):9–23

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Roos EM, Lohmander LS (2003) The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:64

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Roos EM, Roos HP, Ekdahl C, Lohmander LS (1998) Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)–validation of a Swedish version. Scand J Med Sci Sports 8:439–448

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD (1998) Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)–development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 28:88–96

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Roos EM, Toksvig-Larsen S (2003) Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) - validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:17

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Salavati M, Mazaheri M, Negahban H, Sohani SM, Ebrahimian MR, Ebrahimi I, Kazemnejad A, Salavati M (2008) Validation of a Persian-version of Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in Iranians with knee injuries. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 16:1178–1182

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Shelbourne KD, Barnes AF, Gray T (2012) Correlation of a single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE) rating with modified Cincinnati knee rating system and IKDC subjective total scores for patients after ACL reconstruction or knee arthroscopy. Am J Sports Med 40:2487–2491

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Sueyoshi T, Emoto G, Yato T (2018) Correlation between Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation score and Lysholm score in primary total knee arthroplasty patients. Arthroplasty Today 4:99–102

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Tanner SM, Dainty KN, Marx RG, Kirkley A (2007) Knee-specific quality-of-life instruments: which ones measure symptoms and disabilities most important to patients? Am J Sports Med 35:1450–1458

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Uhlmann RF, Inui TS, Carter WB (1984) Patient requests and expectations. Definitions and clinical applications. Med Care 22:681–685

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wang C, Shen Y, Zhu S (2015) Distribution features of skeletal metastases: a comparative study between pulmonary and prostate cancers. PLoS One 23 10(11):e0143437

    Google Scholar 

  39. White DK, Master H (2016) Patient-reported measures of physical function in knee osteoarthritis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 42:239–252

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Williams GN, Gangel TJ, Arciero RA, Uhorchak JM, Taylor DC (1999) Comparison of the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation method and two shoulder rating scales. Outcomes measures after shoulder surgery. Am J Sports Med 27:214–221

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Williams GN, Taylor DC, Gangel TJ, Uhorchak JM, Arciero RA (2000) Comparison of the single assessment numeric evaluation method and the Lysholm score. Clin Orthop Relat Res 373:184–192

    Google Scholar 

  42. Wilson I, Bohm E, Lübbeke A, Lyman S, Overgaard S, Rolfson O, W-Dahl A, Wilkinson M, Dunbar M (2019) Orthopaedic registries with patient-reported outcome measures. EFORT Open Rev 4:357–367

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was performed at the Toulouse University Hospital.

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Musculoskeletal Institute, Hôpital Pierre Paul Riquet, CHU Toulouse Purpan, 1 place Baylac, 31000, Toulouse, France

    Vincent Marot, Arthur Justo, Amer Alshanquiti, Nicolas Reina & Etienne Cavaignac

  2. Pediatric Orthopaedics Unit, Children Hospital, CHU Toulouse, Toulouse, France

    Franck Accadbled

  3. Department of Epidemiology, Health Economics and Public Health, UMR1027 INSERM-University of Toulouse III, Toulouse University Hospital (CHU), Toulouse, France

    Emilie Berard

  4. SPS research, 8 rue des Braves, Toulouse, France

    Etienne Cavaignac

  5. I2R, Institut de Recherche Riquet, Toulouse, France

    Etienne Cavaignac

Authors
  1. Vincent Marot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arthur Justo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amer Alshanquiti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicolas Reina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Franck Accadbled
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Emilie Berard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Etienne Cavaignac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Etienne Cavaignac.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Work was performed at the Musculoskeletal Institute, Hôpital Pierre Paul Riquet, CHU Toulouse, Toulouse, France.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marot, V., Justo, A., Alshanquiti, A. et al. Simple Knee Value: a simple evaluation correlated to existing knee PROMs. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29, 1952–1959 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06281-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06281-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation