Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55454, USA.
Am J Sports Med. 2009 Nov;37(11):2151-7. doi: 10.1177/0363546509337698. Epub 2009 Jul 24.
Functional outcome questionnaires have become a common part of patient follow-up in the orthopaedic community. The modified Cincinnati Knee Rating System and the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective scale were designed to provide clinicians with information regarding a patient's functional and clinical status after knee surgery.
The functional outcome data reported on the modified Cincinnati Knee Rating System and the IKDC subjective questionnaire are equivalent.
Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.
Between 2000 and 2007, all patients with complex knee disorders seen in our orthopaedic clinic were prospectively followed and given simultaneously the modified Cincinnati Knee Rating System and the IKDC subjective questionnaires to report their functional outcomes. The total scores of each instrument were compared at each time of evaluation. As a measure of responsiveness, the standardized response means were calculated. A second within-patient analysis was also performed to determine if the results would be different when looked at by the patient.
There were a total of 130 patients with a total of 444 modified Cincinnati Knee Rating System questionnaires and 462 IKDC subjective complete questionnaires included in the study. Overall total scores on both the modified Cincinnati Knee Rating System and the IKDC subjective questionnaires were equivalent in a population analysis. Overall total scores showed improvement in function over time from preoperative measurement through the 2-year follow-up. The individual patient analysis demonstrated that, for a specific patient, it was possible that up to 34% of the population would report a total score of more than 10 points difference, depending on the scale selected.
The modified Cincinnati Knee Rating System and the IKDC subjective rating questionnaires reported by patient population provide similar results. The practitioner who is not performing a population-based study but following individual patients for recovery will find that the individual questionnaires may offer different functional limitations. Individual differences were lost in the population means, with the approximate balance of positive and negative score differences masking the individual patient differences.
功能结果问卷已成为矫形外科领域患者随访的常见部分。改良辛辛那提膝关节评分系统和国际膝关节文献委员会（IKDC）主观量表旨在为临床医生提供膝关节手术后患者功能和临床状况的信息。
改良辛辛那提膝关节评分系统和 IKDC 主观问卷报告的功能结果数据是等效的。
队列研究（诊断）；证据水平，2。
在 2000 年至 2007 年间，我们的矫形诊所前瞻性地随访了所有患有复杂膝关节疾病的患者，并同时使用改良辛辛那提膝关节评分系统和 IKDC 主观问卷报告他们的功能结果。在每次评估时比较每种仪器的总分。作为响应性的衡量标准，计算了标准化反应均值。还进行了第二次患者内分析，以确定当从患者角度看待时结果是否会有所不同。
共有 130 例患者，共纳入 444 份改良辛辛那提膝关节评分系统问卷和 462 份 IKDC 主观完整问卷。人群分析中，改良辛辛那提膝关节评分系统和 IKDC 主观问卷的总体总分相当。总体总分显示功能随时间从术前测量到 2 年随访逐渐改善。个体患者分析表明，对于特定患者，根据所选量表，多达 34%的人群可能报告总分相差超过 10 分。
改良辛辛那提膝关节评分系统和患者人群报告的 IKDC 主观评分问卷提供了相似的结果。如果临床医生没有进行基于人群的研究，而是对个体患者进行随访以观察恢复情况，那么他可能会发现个体问卷可能会提供不同的功能限制。个体差异在人群平均值中丢失，阳性和阴性评分差异的大致平衡掩盖了个体患者的差异。
