• Arch Phys Med Rehabil · May 2004

    Analysis of outcome measures for persons with patellofemoral pain: which are reliable and valid?

    • Kay M Crossley, Kim L Bennell, Sallie M Cowan, and Sally Green.
    • Centre for Sports Medicine Research and Education, School of Physiotherapy, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. k.crossley@unimelb.edu.au
    • Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004 May 1; 85 (5): 815-22.

    ObjectiveTo examine the test-retest reliability, validity, and responsiveness of several outcome measures in the treatment of patellofemoral pain.DesignEvaluation of the clinimetric properties of individual outcome measures for patellofemoral pain treatment, using data collected from a previously published randomized controlled trial (RCT).SettingGeneral community and private practice.ParticipantsThe data from 71 persons enrolled in an RCT of a conservative intervention for patellofemoral pain were used to evaluate the measures' validity and responsiveness. A subset of this cohort (n=20) was used to assess reliability.InterventionsNot applicable.Main Outcome MeasuresThree 10-cm visual analog scales (VASs) for usual pain (VAS-U), worst pain (VAS-W), and pain on 6 aggravating activities (walking, running, squatting, sitting, ascending and descending stairs) (VAS-activity); the Functional Index Questionnaire (FIQ); the Anterior Knee Pain Scale (AKPS); and the global rating of change.ResultsThe test-retest reliability ranged from poor (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=.49) to good (ICC=.83), and the measures correlated moderately with each other (r range,.56-.72). Median change scores differed significantly between improved and unimproved persons for all measures. The effect sizes for VAS-U (.79), VAS-W (.88), and the AKPS (.98) were large, indicating greater responsiveness than the FIQ (.37) and VAS-activity (.66). Similarly, the AKPS and VAS-W were the most efficient measures for detecting a treatment effect when compared with a reference measure (VAS-U, which was assigned a value of 1). The minimal difference that patients or clinicians consider clinically important for the AKPS is 10 (out of 100) points and for the VAS it is 2cm (out of 10cm).ConclusionsThe AKPS and VAS for usual or worst pain are reliable, valid, and responsive and are therefore recommended for future clinical trials or clinical practice in assessing treatment outcome in persons with patellofemoral pain.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…