Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

A simple visual analog scale for pain is as responsive as the WOMAC, the SF-36, and the EQ-5D in measuring outcomes of revision hip arthroplasty

Zampelis, Vasileios LU ; Ornstein, Ewald ; Franzen, Herbert and Atroshi, Isam LU (2014) In Acta Orthopaedica 85(2). p.128-132
Abstract
Background and purpose - Little is known about the comparative performance of patient-reported outcome measures in revision hip arthroplasty. We compared the performance of the WOMAC, the SF-36, the EQ-5D, and a pain-related visual analog scale (VAS) in revision hip arthroplasty. Methods - 45 patients with aseptic prosthetic loosening following primary hip arthroplasty completed the WOMAC, the SF-36, the EQ-5D, and a VAS for pain-at baseline and 2 years after revision. Responsiveness of the measures was compared with the effect size (with >= 0.8 being considered large). Agreement between scales measuring the same type of outcome (pain or physical function) was assessed with the Bland-Altman method. Results - The mean preoperative scores... (More)
Background and purpose - Little is known about the comparative performance of patient-reported outcome measures in revision hip arthroplasty. We compared the performance of the WOMAC, the SF-36, the EQ-5D, and a pain-related visual analog scale (VAS) in revision hip arthroplasty. Methods - 45 patients with aseptic prosthetic loosening following primary hip arthroplasty completed the WOMAC, the SF-36, the EQ-5D, and a VAS for pain-at baseline and 2 years after revision. Responsiveness of the measures was compared with the effect size (with >= 0.8 being considered large). Agreement between scales measuring the same type of outcome (pain or physical function) was assessed with the Bland-Altman method. Results - The mean preoperative scores for the pain and physical function scales of WOMAC and SF-36, EQ-5D index, and VAS for pain improved statistically significantly 2 years after revision. The effect size for the WOMAC pain was 1.7, that for SF-36 pain was 1.4, that for WOMAC physical function was 1.6, that for SF-36 physical function was 0.8, and that for EQ-5D index was 1.2. The VAS for pain had an effect size of 2.1, which was larger than that for SF-36 pain and for the EQ-5D index (p <= 0.03) but not for WOMAC pain (p = 0.2). The limits of agreement between WOMAC pain, SF-36 pain, and the VAS scale measuring pain- and between the WOMAC and SF-36 scales measuring physical function-were wide. Internal-consistency reliability was high for the WOMAC and SF-36 scales but low for the EQ-5D. Interpretation - In patients with first-time revision hip arthroplasty done for aseptic loosening, the WOMAC, SF-36, and EQ-5D showed high responsiveness in measuring patient-reported outcomes and the simple VAS for pain performed equally well. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; and
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Acta Orthopaedica
volume
85
issue
2
pages
128 - 132
publisher
Taylor & Francis
external identifiers
  • wos:000333185500004
  • scopus:84896508508
  • pmid:24479622
ISSN
1745-3682
DOI
10.3109/17453674.2014.887951
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
a9270931-9463-4bd8-8da0-879a02f20ea3 (old id 4407484)
date added to LUP
2016-04-01 14:28:17
date last changed
2022-04-22 03:24:32
@article{a9270931-9463-4bd8-8da0-879a02f20ea3,
  abstract     = {{Background and purpose - Little is known about the comparative performance of patient-reported outcome measures in revision hip arthroplasty. We compared the performance of the WOMAC, the SF-36, the EQ-5D, and a pain-related visual analog scale (VAS) in revision hip arthroplasty. Methods - 45 patients with aseptic prosthetic loosening following primary hip arthroplasty completed the WOMAC, the SF-36, the EQ-5D, and a VAS for pain-at baseline and 2 years after revision. Responsiveness of the measures was compared with the effect size (with &gt;= 0.8 being considered large). Agreement between scales measuring the same type of outcome (pain or physical function) was assessed with the Bland-Altman method. Results - The mean preoperative scores for the pain and physical function scales of WOMAC and SF-36, EQ-5D index, and VAS for pain improved statistically significantly 2 years after revision. The effect size for the WOMAC pain was 1.7, that for SF-36 pain was 1.4, that for WOMAC physical function was 1.6, that for SF-36 physical function was 0.8, and that for EQ-5D index was 1.2. The VAS for pain had an effect size of 2.1, which was larger than that for SF-36 pain and for the EQ-5D index (p &lt;= 0.03) but not for WOMAC pain (p = 0.2). The limits of agreement between WOMAC pain, SF-36 pain, and the VAS scale measuring pain- and between the WOMAC and SF-36 scales measuring physical function-were wide. Internal-consistency reliability was high for the WOMAC and SF-36 scales but low for the EQ-5D. Interpretation - In patients with first-time revision hip arthroplasty done for aseptic loosening, the WOMAC, SF-36, and EQ-5D showed high responsiveness in measuring patient-reported outcomes and the simple VAS for pain performed equally well.}},
  author       = {{Zampelis, Vasileios and Ornstein, Ewald and Franzen, Herbert and Atroshi, Isam}},
  issn         = {{1745-3682}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{2}},
  pages        = {{128--132}},
  publisher    = {{Taylor & Francis}},
  series       = {{Acta Orthopaedica}},
  title        = {{A simple visual analog scale for pain is as responsive as the WOMAC, the SF-36, and the EQ-5D in measuring outcomes of revision hip arthroplasty}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2014.887951}},
  doi          = {{10.3109/17453674.2014.887951}},
  volume       = {{85}},
  year         = {{2014}},
}