Skip to main content
Log in

Validation of a new symptom outcome for knee osteoarthritis: the Ambulation Adjusted Score for Knee pain

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Rheumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Validation of a symptom measure for early knee OA may help identify new treatments and modifiable risk factors. Symptom measures that consider pain in the context of activity level may provide better discrimination than pain alone. Therefore, we aimed to compare sensitivity to change for radiographic progression between Ambulation Adjusted Score for Knee pain (AASK), which accounts for self-reported ambulation, and Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) knee pain score.

Design

Participants were assessed annually up to 48 months using WOMAC, Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE) ambulation, and knee radiographs. AASK was defined as ((WOMAC pain) + 1)/((average daily hours of walking) + 1). Radiographs were scored for Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade. Linear regression, stratified by OA status, evaluated relationships between changes in AASK and WOMAC pain and KL grade over time.

Results

For 4191 people (8030 knees), the mean age was 61.2 (+ 9.2) years old and BMI was 28.6 (+ 4.8) kg/m2; 58% female. Over 40% of knees had WOMAC pain scores of 0; by design, no knees had AASK scores of 0. Annual changes in AASK were more sensitive to changes in KL than changes in WOMAC in those without baseline OA (0.20 and 0.16 change per unit KL change, p = 0.005 and 0.070 respectively), but performed similarly in knees with OA.

Conclusion

AASK is simple to assess using existing validated questionnaires. AASK performs well in individuals with and without OA and should be considered in clinical trials and observational studies of early knee OA.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cisternas MG, Murphy L, Sacks JJ, Solomon DH, Pasta DJ, Helmick CG (2016) Alternative methods for defining osteoarthritis and the impact on estimating prevalence in a US population-based survey. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 68:574–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Nguyen US, Zhang Y, Zhu Y, Niu J, Zhang B, Felson DT (2011) Increasing prevalence of knee pain and symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: survey and cohort data. Ann Intern Med 155:725–732

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Kotlarz H, Gunnarsson CL, Fang H, Rizzo JA (2009) Insurer and out-of-pocket costs of osteoarthritis in the US: evidence from national survey data. Arthritis Rheum 60:3546–3553

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mankin HJ (1993) Clinical features of osteoarthritis. In: Kelly WN, EDJ H, Ruddy S, Sledge CB (eds) Textbook of Rheumatology, 4th edn. W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, PA, pp 1374–1384

    Google Scholar 

  5. Guccione AA, Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Anthony JM, Zhang Y, Wilson PW, Kelly-Hayes M, Wolf PA, Kreger BE, Kannel WB (1994) The effects of specific medical conditions on the functional limitations of elders in the Framingham Study. Am J Public Health 84:351–358

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lequesne M, Brandt K, Bellamy N, Moskowitz R, Menkes CJ, Pelletier JP et al (1994) Guidelines for testing slow acting drugs in osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol Suppl 41:65–71 discussion 72-63

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Neogi T, Zhang Y (2011) Osteoarthritis prevention. Curr Opin Rheumatol 23:185–191

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Bellamy N (1989) Pain assessment in osteoarthritis: experience with the WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Semin Arthritis Rheum 18:14–17

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bellamy N (2002) WOMAC: a 20-year experiential review of a patient-centered self-reported health status questionnaire. J Rheumatol 29:2473–2476

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW (1986) A preliminary evaluation of the dimensionality and clinical importance of pain and disability in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. Clin Rheumatol 5:231–241

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bellamy N, Wells G, Campbell J (1991) Relationship between severity and clinical importance of symptoms in osteoarthritis. Clin Rheumatol 10:138–143

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Altman R, Brandt KD, Hochberg MC, Moskowitz R (1996) Design and conduct of clinical trials in patients with osteoarthritis: recommendations from a task force of the Osteoarthritis Research Society. Osteoarthr Cartil 4:217–243

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lo GH, McAlindon TE, Hawker GA, Driban JB, Price L, Song J et al (2015) Symptom assessment in knee osteoarthritis needs to account for physical activity level. Arthritis Rheumatol 67:2897–2904

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Jinks C, Jordan K, Croft P (2002) Measuring the population impact of knee pain and disability with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Pain 100:55–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dieppe PA, Cushnaghan J, Shepstone L (1997) The Bristol ‘OA500’ study: progression of osteoarthritis (OA) over 3 years and the relationship between clinical and radiographic changes at the knee joint. Osteoarthr Cartil 5:87–97

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Dieppe PA (2004) Relationship between symptoms and structural change in osteoarthritis. What are the important targets for osteoarthritis therapy? J Rheumatol Suppl 70:50–53

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hannan MT, Felson DT, Pincus T (2000) Analysis of the discordance between radiographic changes and knee pain in osteoarthritis of the knee. J Rheumatol 27:1513–1517

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hawker GA, Stewart L, French MR, Cibere J, Jordan JM, March L, Suarez-Almazor M, Gooberman-Hill R (2008) Understanding the pain experience in hip and knee osteoarthritis--an OARSI/OMERACT initiative. Osteoarthr Cartil 16:415–422

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Davis AM, Perruccio AV, Canizares M, Hawker GA, Roos EM, Maillefert JF, Lohmander LS (2009) Comparative, validity and responsiveness of the HOOS-PS and KOOS-PS to the WOMAC physical function subscale in total joint replacement for osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil 17:843–847

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Washburn RA, Smith KW, Jette AM, Janney CA (1993) The Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE): development and evaluation. J Clin Epidemiol 46:153–162

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Peterfy C, Li J, Zaim S, Duryea J, Lynch J, Miaux Y, Yu W, Genant HK (2003) Comparison of fixed-flexion positioning with fluoroscopic semi-flexed positioning for quantifying radiographic joint-space width in the knee: test-retest reproducibility. Skelet Radiol 32:128–132

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Radiographic (x-ray) manual (version 2.1, 8-23-2006). https://oai.epi-ucsf.org/datarelease/OperationsManuals.asp. Accessed 17 Dec 2015

  24. Altman RD, Gold GE (2007) Atlas of individual radiographic features in osteoarthritis, revised. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 15(Suppl A):A1–A56

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Project 15 test-retest reliability of semi-quantitative readings from knee radiographs. https://oai.epi-ucsf.org/datarelease/ImageAssessments.asp. Accessed 3 Feb 2017

  27. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Brandt KD, Dieppe P, Radin E (2009) Etiopathogenesis of osteoarthritis. Med Clin North Am 93:1–24 xv

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Dr. Lo is supported by K23 AR062127, an NIH/NIAMS funded mentored award; and Dr. Dunlop’s awards, R01 AR054155 and P60 AR064464, provided support for design and conduct of the study, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation and review of this work. This work is supported in part with resources at the VA HSR&D Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety (No. CIN 13-413), at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, TX. Dr. Hawker receives support as the Sir John and Lady Eaton Professor and Chair, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto. The Osteoarthritis Initiative is a public-private partnership comprised of five contracts (N01-AR-2-2258; N01-AR-2-2259; N01-AR-2-2260; N01-AR-2-2261; N01-AR-2-2262) funded by the National Institutes of Health, a branch of the Department of Health and Human Services, and conducted by the Osteoarthritis Initiative Study Investigators. Private funding partners include Merck Research Laboratories; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, GlaxoSmithKline; and Pfizer, Inc. Private sector funding for the Osteoarthritis Initiative is managed by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Grace H. Lo.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lo, G.H., Song, J., McAlindon, T.E. et al. Validation of a new symptom outcome for knee osteoarthritis: the Ambulation Adjusted Score for Knee pain. Clin Rheumatol 38, 851–858 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-018-4352-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-018-4352-3

Keywords

Navigation