Minimum clinically important difference of 36-item short form health survey (SF-36) to assess post-surgery quality of life in knee osteoarthritis

Abstract

Background

Quality of life in patients receiving knee arthroplasty is crucial for rehabilitation. Even if the validity of the 36-Item Short Form (SF-36) was already confirmed, the Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB) and Patient Acceptable Symptom Score (PASS) values of this score remain unknown for both Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) and Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty (UKA).

Objective

The purpose of this research was to compute the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) of the SF-36 after UKA, and the SCB and PASS of SF-36 after TKA and UKA, in order to assess post-surgery quality of life in knee osteoarthritis.

Methods

Overall, 59 patients (40 women and 19 men, mean age 60.3 ± 13.1 years) completed the questionnaire until six months follow-up. Of these patients, 22 underwent the TKA procedure, while 37 patients underwent the UKA procedure. The anchor question for computing the MCID and SCB thresholds was “How would you describe your health condition in relation to your previous state?”. The PASS scores were determined using the ROC curve and the 75th percentile of the cumulative percentage curve of respondents who believe their symptoms are under control.

Results

The MCID values of global SF-36, Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) after UKA were 11.3, 14.5 and 11.4, respectively. The SCB values of global SF-36, PCS and MCS after UKA were 23.5, 23.1 and 15, respectively. The PASS values of global SF-36, PCS and MCS after TKA were 71.2, 75 and 69.3, respectively. The PASS values of global SF-36, PCS and MCS after UKA were 70.4, 72.1 and 67.5, respectively.

Conclusion

The SF-36 score represents a valid score for quality of life in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Taken together, the results showed a statistically significant improvement between inception and latest follow-up after TKA and UKA.

Keywords

MCID SF-36 knee arthroplasty knee osteoarthritis quality of life

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Rabini

de Sire

Marzetti

, et al. Effects of focal muscle vibration on physical functioning in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2015; 51: 513–520.

de Sire

Marotta

Marinaro

, et al. Role of physical exercise and nutraceuticals in modulating molecular pathways of osteoarthritis. Int J Mol Sci 2021; 22: 5722.

Longo

De Salvatore

Candela

, et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: minimal important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for the forgotten joint score. Medicina (Kaunas) 2021; 57: 324.

Churruca

Pomare

Ellis

, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): a review of generic and condition-specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues. Health Expect 2021; 24: 1015–1024.

Wiklund

. Assessment of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials: the example of health-related quality of life. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2004; 18: 351–363.

Turner

Slade

Retzer

, et al. An introduction to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in trauma. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2019; 86: 314–320.

Busija

Pausenberger

Haines

, et al. Adult measures of general health and health-related quality of life: medical outcomes study short form 36-item (SF-36) and short form 12-item (SF-12) health surveys, Nottingham health profile (NHP), sickness impact profile (SIP), medical outcomes study short form 6D (SF-6D), health utilities Index mark 3 (HUI3), quality of well-being scale (QWB), and assessment of quality of life (AQoL). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63(Suppl 11):S383–S412.

Cepeda

Polascik

Ling

. A primer on clinically important outcome values: going beyond relying on P values alone. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2020; 102: 262–268.

Longo

De Salvatore

Di Naro

, et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: the Italian version of the forgotten joint score-12 is valid and reliable to assess prosthesis awareness. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2022; 30: 1250–1256.

10.

Sedaghat

. Understanding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of patient-reported outcome measures. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019; 161: 551–560.

11.

Tashjian

. Editorial commentary: the alphabet soup of understanding clinical shoulder research: MCID (minimal clinically important difference), PASS (patient acceptable symptomatic state), SCB (substantial clinical benefit), and now … MOI (maximal outcome improvement). Arthroscopy 2020; 36: 1811–1812.

12.

Goh

Liow

MHL

Chen

, et al. The patient acceptable symptom state for the knee society score, Oxford knee score and short form-36 following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2021; 31: 1113–1122.

13.

Crosby

Kolotkin

Williams

. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56: 395–407.

14.

Apolone

Mosconi

. The Italian SF-36 health survey: translation, validation and norming. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 1025–1036.

15.

Yarlas

Bayliss

Cappelleri

, et al. Psychometric validation of the SF-36. Qual Life Res 2018; 27: 273–290.

16.

Kohn

Sassoon

Fernando

. Classifications in brief: kellgren-lawrence classification of osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474: 1886–1893.

17.

Lins

Carvalho

. SF-36 total score as a single measure of health-related quality of life: scoping review. SAGE Open Med 2016; 4: 2050312116671725.

18.

Gandek

Ware

. Validity and responsiveness of the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score: a comparative study among total knee replacement patients. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2017; 69: 817–825.

19.

Copay

Glassman

Subach

, et al. Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the oswestry disability Index, medical outcomes study questionnaire short form 36, and pain scales. Spine J 2008; 8: 968–974.

20.

Stipancic

Yunusova

Berry

, et al. Minimally detectable change and minimal clinically important difference of a decline in sentence intelligibility and speaking rate for individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2018; 61: 2757–2771.

21.

Bin Abd Razak

Acharyya

Tan

, et al. Predictors of midterm outcomes after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in asians. Clin Orthop Surg 2017; 9: 432–438.

22.

Maredupaka

Meshram

Chatte

, et al. Minimal clinically important difference of commonly used patient-reported outcome measures in total knee arthroplasty: review of terminologies, methods and proposed values. Knee Surg Relat Res 2020; 32: 19.

23.

Escobar

Quintana

Bilbao

, et al. Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after total knee replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007; 15: 273–280.

24.

Migliorini

Maffulli

Schäfer

, et al. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) in patients who have undergone total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Knee Surg Relat Res 2024; 36: 3.

25.

Steinhaus

Iyer

Lovecchio

, et al. Minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit using PROMIS CAT in cervical spine surgery. Clin Spine Surg 2019; 32: 392–397.

26.

Park

Shin

Lee

, et al. Minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit in pain, functional, and quality of life scales in failed back surgery syndrome patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017; 42: E474–EE81.

27.

Carreon

Glassman

Campbell

, et al. Neck disability Index, short form-36 physical component summary, and pain scales for neck and arm pain: the minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after cervical spine fusion. Spine J 2010; 10: 469–474.

28.

Clement

Weir

Deehan

. Meaningful values in the short form health survey-36 after total knee arthroplasty – an alternative to the EuroQol five-dimension index as a measure for health-related quality of life : minimal clinically important difference, minimal important change, patient-acceptable symptom state thresholds, and responsiveness. Bone Joint Res 2022; 11: 477–483.