Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Validation of the German Forgotten Joint Score (G-FJS) according to the COSMIN checklist: does a reduction in joint awareness indicate clinical improvement after arthroplasty of the knee?

  • Knee Arthroplasty
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Evaluation of further improvement in treatment of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee requires measurement tools with a high discriminatory power. In this context, joint awareness in everyday life is seen as crucial criterion. Purpose of this study was to adapt and validate a German version of the “Forgotten Joint Score” (FJS) according to the COSMIN checklist.

Methods

We evaluated a German translation of the FJS for reliability, validity and responsiveness according to the COSMIN checklist. Therefore, patients with an artificial knee joint completed the G-FJS questionnaire twice at intervals of at least 2 weeks. In addition, the Knee Society Score, the Oxford Knee Score, the Tegner Activity Scale, a Visual Analogue Scale, the EuroQol-5D (EQ 5-D), and a subjective assessment of the limitations were recorded.

Results

Between June and December 2014, one hundred and five patients (average age 65.2 years) completed both questionnaires and were available for data analysis. Test–retest reliability of the FJS was high with an ICC = 0.80 (95 % CI 0.69, 0.90) and with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.95 (95 % CI 0.92, 0.99).

Conclusions

The German translation of the FJS is a viable tool for the postoperative monitoring after arthroplasty of the knee. This is the first study providing data on test–retest reliability of the FJS. The FJS is a reliable and valid measurement tool for evaluation of patient rated outcome in patients with an artificial knee joint.

Level of evidence

Validating cohort study, Level 1b.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A (1998) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Br 80(1):63–69

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Rabin R, de Charro F (2001) EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 33(5):337–343

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Sieverding M, Loibl M, von Knoch F, Mannion AF, Leunig M, Munzinger U (2009) The 12-item Oxford knee score: cross-cultural adaptation into German and assessment of its psychometric properties in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Osteoarthr cartil/OARS, Osteoarthr Res Soc 17(1):49–52. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2008.05.017

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Collins NJ, Misra D, Felson DT, Crossley KM, Roos EM (2011) Measures of knee function: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical Function Short Form (KOOS-PS), Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADL), Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Activity Rating Scale (ARS), and Tegner Activity Score (TAS). Arthritis Care Res 63(Suppl 11):S208–S228. doi:10.1002/acr.20632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Behrend H, Giesinger K, Giesinger JM, Kuster MS (2012) The “forgotten joint” as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty: validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure. J Arthroplast 27(3):430–436. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.06.035 (e431)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dawson J, Beard DJ, McKibbin H, Harris K, Jenkinson C, Price AJ (2014) Development of a patient-reported outcome measure of activity and participation (the OKS-APQ) to supplement the Oxford knee score. Bone Jt J 96-B(3):332–338. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.96B3.32845

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ramaesh R, Jenkins P, Lane JV, Knight S, Macdonald D, Howie C (2014) Personality, function and satisfaction in patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement. J Orthop Sci: Off J Jpn Orthop Assoc 19(2):275–281. doi:10.1007/s00776-013-0509-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hossain FS, Konan S, Patel S, Rodriguez-Merchan EC, Haddad FS (2015) The assessment of outcome after total knee arthroplasty: are we there yet? Bone Jt J 97-B(1):3–9. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.97B1.34434

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Tegner Y, Lysholm J (1985) Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 198:43–49

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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(12):1833–1840

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Giesinger JM, Kuster MS, Behrend H, Giesinger K (2013) Association of psychological status and patient-reported physical outcome measures in joint arthroplasty: a lack of divergent validity. Health Qual Life Outcomes 11:64. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-11-64

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Thienpont E, Opsomer G, Koninckx A, Houssiau F (2014) Joint awareness in different types of knee arthroplasty evaluated with the Forgotten Joint score. J Arthroplast 29(1):48–51. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Eymard F, Charles-Nelson A, Katsahian S, Chevalier X, Bercovy M (2015) “Forgotten knee” after total knee replacement: a pragmatic study from a single-centre cohort. Joint, Bone, Spine: Rev Du Rhum. doi:10.1016/j.jbspin.2014.11.006

    Google Scholar 

  15. Giesinger K, Hamilton DF, Jost B, Holzner B, Giesinger JM (2014) Comparative responsiveness of outcome measures for total knee arthroplasty. Osteoarthr Cartil/OARS, Osteoarthr Res Soc 22(2):184–189. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2013.11.001

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. OECD Health at a Glance: Europe (2012) OECD Publishing. http://ec.europa.eu/health/reports/docs/health_glance_2012_en.pdf. Accessed 26 Apr 2015

  17. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60(1):34–42. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2010) The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res: Int J Qual Life Asp Treat, Care Rehabil 19(4):539–549. doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bullinger M, Alonso J, Apolone G, Leplege A, Sullivan M, Wood-Dauphinee S, Gandek B, Wagner A, Aaronson N, Bech P, Fukuhara S, Kaasa S, Ware JE Jr (1998) Translating health status questionnaires and evaluating their quality: the IQOLA Project approach. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol 51(11):913–923

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2012) COSMIN checklist manual. http://www.cosmin.nl/images/upload/files/COSMIN%20checklist%20manual%20v9.pdf. Accessed 26 Apr 2015

  21. Thorborg K, Holmich P, Christensen R, Petersen J, Roos EM (2011) The Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS): development and validation according to the COSMIN checklist. Br J Sports Med 45(6):478–491. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2010.080937

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ramisetty NKY, Mohtadi NG (2015) Patient-reported outcome measures for hip preservation surgery—a systematic review of the literature. J Hip Preserv Surg. doi:10.1093/jhps/hnv002 (hnv002v001-hnv002)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW (2003) Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 41(5):582–592. doi:10.1097/01.MLR.0000062554.74615.4C

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lewis GN, Rice DA, McNair PJ, Kluger M (2014) Predictors of persistent pain after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth. doi:10.1093/bja/aeu441

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Longo UG, Loppini M, Trovato U, Rizzello G, Maffulli N, Denaro V (2015) No difference between unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty for the management of medial osteoarthtritis of the knee in the same patient: a systematic review and pooling data analysis. Br Med Bull. doi:10.1093/bmb/ldv009

    Google Scholar 

  26. Clement ND, MacDonald D, Simpson AH (2014) The minimal clinically important difference in the Oxford knee score and Short Form 12 score after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg, Sports Traumatol, Arthrosc: Off J ESSKA 22(8):1933–1939. doi:10.1007/s00167-013-2776-5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Baumann F, Weber J, Zeman F, Muller M, Lahner M, Nerlich M, Fickert S (2015) Validation of a German version of the International Hip Outcome Tool (G-iHOT33) according to the COSMIN checklist: how much improvement is clinically relevant? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. doi:10.1007/s00402-015-2336-1

    Google Scholar 

  28. van Hemert WL, Senden R, Grimm B, Kester AD, van der Linde MJ, Heyligers IC (2009) Patella retention versus replacement in total knee arthroplasty; functional and clinimetric aspects. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 129(2):259–265. doi:10.1007/s00402-008-0640-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Giesinger JM, Kuster MS, Holzner B, Giesinger K (2013) Development of a computer-adaptive version of the forgotten joint score. J Arthroplast 28(3):418–422. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.08.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Clement ND, MacDonald D, Simpson AH, Burnett R (2013) Total knee replacement in patients with concomitant back pain results in a worse functional outcome and a lower rate of satisfaction. The bone & joint journal 95-B(12):1632–1639. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.95B12.31684

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Harris K, Dawson J, Doll H, Field RE, Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Jenkinson C, Price AJ, Beard DJ (2013) Can pain and function be distinguished in the Oxford Knee Score in a meaningful way? An exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Qual Life Res: Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil 22(9):2561–2568. doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0393-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hanusch BC, O’Connor DB, Ions P, Scott A, Gregg PJ (2014) Effects of psychological distress and perceptions of illness on recovery from total knee replacement. The Bone Jt J 96-B:210–216. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.96B2.31136

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Browne JP, Bastaki H, Dawson J (2013) What is the optimal time point to assess patient-reported recovery after hip and knee replacement? A systematic review and analysis of routinely reported outcome data from the English patient-reported outcome measures programme. Health Qual Life Outcomes 11:128. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-11-128

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Tubach F, Ravaud P, Martin-Mola E, Awada H, Bellamy N, Bombardier C, Felson DT, Hajjaj-Hassouni N, Hochberg M, Logeart I, Matucci-Cerinic M, van de Laar M, van der Heijde D, Dougados M (2012) Minimum clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptom state in pain and function in rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, chronic back pain, hand osteoarthritis, and hip and knee osteoarthritis: results from a prospective multinational study. Arthritis Care Res 64(11):1699–1707. doi:10.1002/acr.21747

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Trauma Surgery, Regensburg University Medical Center, Regensburg, Germany

    Florian Baumann, Toni Ernstberger, Markus Loibl & Michael Nerlich

  2. Center for Clinical Studies, Regensburg University Medical Center, Regensburg, Germany

    Florian Zeman

  3. Sporthopaedicum Straubing, Straubing, Germany

    Carsten Tibesku

Authors
  1. Florian Baumann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Toni Ernstberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Markus Loibl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Florian Zeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael Nerlich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Carsten Tibesku
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florian Baumann.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 21 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baumann, F., Ernstberger, T., Loibl, M. et al. Validation of the German Forgotten Joint Score (G-FJS) according to the COSMIN checklist: does a reduction in joint awareness indicate clinical improvement after arthroplasty of the knee?. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136, 257–264 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2372-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2372-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation