Dataset Information

Comparisons of clinically based outcome measures and laboratory-based outcome measure for balance in patients following total hip and knee arthroplasty.

ABSTRACT: Background:Information available in the literature on clinically based and laboratory-based outcome measures of balance is limited. How much information is provided by clinically based outcome measures compared to laboratory-based measure in patients with total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA) is not known. Aim:The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between selected clinically based outcome measures and laboratory-based force platform measure in patients following THA and TKA. Methods:Patients who underwent THA (n = 26) and TKA (n = 28) were evaluated at about 5-7 weeks following surgery. Participants were assessed using four clinically based outcome measures - 1) the Berg Balance Scale (BBS), 2) the Timed Up and Go test (TUG), 3) the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC), and 4) the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index-function subscale (WOMAC-function) - and one laboratory-based force plate measure (95% ellipse area). Results:Moderate correlations were observed between the BBS and the 95% ellipse area of force plate (r = 0.46-0.51) for the two-legged stance, the anterior lean stance, and the posterior lean stance. Fair correlations were observed between TUG and the 95% ellipse area of force plate (r = 0.31-0.37) for all the three test conditions. Low correlations were observed for the ABC and the WOMAC-function with the 95% ellipse area of force plate (r = 0.11-0.25) for all the three test conditions. Conclusion:The BBS demonstrated the greatest correlations with the 95% ellipse area of the force plate measure and should be preferred by physical therapists over the TUG, the ABC, and the WOMAC-function to assess balance in patients with THA and TKA.

SUBMITTER: Jogi P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6209363 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparisons of clinically based outcome measures and laboratory-based outcome measure for balance in patients following total hip and knee arthroplasty.

Jogi Pankaj P Overend Tom T Kramer John J

Orthopedic research and reviews 20170410

<h4>Background</h4>Information available in the literature on clinically based and laboratory-based outcome measures of balance is limited. How much information is provided by clinically based outcome measures compared to laboratory-based measure in patients with total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA) is not known.<h4>Aim</h4>The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between selected clinically based outcome measures and laboratory-based force platform measure in patients ...[more]

PMID: 30774474

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo systematically review studies using machine learning (ML) algorithms to predict whether patients undergoing total knee or total hip arthroplasty achieve an improvement as high or higher than the minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) (classification problem).MethodsStudies were eligible to be included in the review if they collected PROMs both pre- and postintervention, reported the method of MCID calculation and applied ML. ML was defined as a family of models which automatically learn from data when selecting features, identifying nonlinear relations or interactions. Predictive performance must have been assessed using common metrics. Studies were searched on MEDLINE, PubMed Central, Web of Science Core Collection, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library. Study selection and risk of bias assessment (ROB) was conducted by two independent researchers.Results517 studies were eligible for title and abstract screening. After screening title and abstract, 18 studies qualified for full-text screening. Finally, six studies were included. The most commonly applied ML algorithms were random forest and gradient boosting. Overall, eleven different ML algorithms have been applied in all papers. All studies reported at least fair predictive performance, with two reporting excellent performance. Sample size varied widely across studies, with 587 to 34,110 individuals observed. PROMs also varied widely across studies, with sixteen applied to TKA and six applied to THA. There was no single PROM utilized commonly in all studies. All studies calculated MCIDs for PROMs based on anchor-based or distribution-based methods or referred to literature which did so. Five studies reported variable importance for their models. Two studies were at high risk of bias.DiscussionNo ML model was identified to perform best at the problem stated, nor can any PROM said to be best predictable. Reporting standards must be improved to reduce risk of bias and improve comparability to other studies.

Dataset Information

Comparisons of clinically based outcome measures and laboratory-based outcome measure for balance in patients following total hip and knee arthroplasty.

Publications

Comparisons of clinically based outcome measures and laboratory-based outcome measure for balance in patients following total hip and knee arthroplasty.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets