Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comment
. 2016 Jun;87(3):280-5.
doi: 10.3109/17453674.2016.1156934. Epub 2016 Mar 3.

Good validity and reliability of the forgotten joint score in evaluating the outcome of total knee arthroplasty

Affiliations
Comment

Good validity and reliability of the forgotten joint score in evaluating the outcome of total knee arthroplasty

Morten G Thomsen et al. Acta Orthop. 2016 Jun.

Abstract

Background and purpose - When evaluating the outcome after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), increasing emphasis has been put on patient satisfaction and ability to perform activities of daily living. To address this, the forgotten joint score (FJS) for assessment of knee awareness has been developed. We investigated the validity and reliability of the FJS. Patients and methods - A Danish version of the FJS questionnaire was created according to internationally accepted standards. 360 participants who underwent primary TKA were invited to participate in the study. Of these, 315 were included in a validity study and 150 in a reliability study. Correlation between the Oxford knee score (OKS) and the FJS was examined and test-retest evaluation was performed. A ceiling effect was defined as participants reaching a score within 15% of the maximum achievable score. Results - The validity study revealed a strong correlation between the FJS and the OKS (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.77-0.85; p < 0.001). The test-retest evaluation showed almost perfect reliability for the FJS total score (ICC = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.88-0.94) and substantial reliability or better for individual items of the FJS (ICC? 0.79). We found a high level of internal consistency (Cronbach's? = 0.96). The ceiling effect for the FJS was 16%, as compared to 37% for the OKS. Interpretation - The FJS showed good construct validity and test-retest reliability. It had a lower ceiling effect than the OKS. The FJS appears to be a promising tool for evaluation of small differences in knee performance in groups of patients with good clinical results after TKA.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Flow diagram presenting participants who were invited to participate in the study and included in the analysis.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Distribution of FJS scores.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Distribution of OKS scores.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Item characteristic curves for individual FJS items of the constraint graded response model.

Comment on

References

    1. Atrey A, Edmondson M C, East D, Miles K, Butler-Manuel A, Ellens N.. A retrospective medium- to long-term results of 1500 AGC total knee replacements - An independent centre functional follow up and survivorship. J Orthop 2014; 11: 37–42. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Behrend H, Giesinger K, Giesinger J M, Kuster M S.. The “forgotten joint” as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty: validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27(3): 430–6.e1. - PubMed
    1. Bellamy N, Buchanan W W, Goldsmith C H, Campbell J, Stitt L W.. 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 1988; 15(12): 1833–40. - PubMed
    1. Bercovy M, Beldame J, Lefebvre B, Duron A.. A prospective clinical and radiological study comparing hydroxyapatite-coated with cemented tibial components in total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012; 94(4): 497–503. - PubMed
    1. Collins N J, Roos E M.. Patient-reported outcomes for total hip and knee arthroplasty: commonly used instruments and attributes of a “good” measure. Clin Geriatr Med 2012; 28(3): 367–94. - PubMed