Ugino Fernanda Kazue, Righetti Carolina Moraes, Alves Débora Pinheiro Lédio, Guimarães Rodrigo Pereira, Honda Emerson Kiyoshi, Ono Nelson Keiske
Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology of Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Santa Casa de São Paulo - FCMSCSP - São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Acta Ortop Bras. 2012;20(4):213-7. doi: 10.1590/S1413-78522012000400004.
To assess the inter-evaluator reproducibility of the Modified Merle d'Aubigné and Postel Method.
Forty-five patients took part in the study, with a mean age of 57.93 (±13.35) who underwent total hip arthroplasty. All were evaluated by three researchers, who received training to standardize their criteria. The evaluation was held by the Modified Merle d'Aubigné and Postel Method (association of prefixes A, B and C) the same day at random, and the researchers did not report to one another throughout the evaluations. For mobility assessment, passive hip movements were performed and measured with the universal goniometer. The statistical analysis was carried out by the Cronbach Test (p≤0.05 and 0.7≤ α<1.0).
The statistical analysis showed significantly high inter-evaluators reliability for the items: prefix (p<0.001; α = 0.961), pain (p<0.001; α= 0.892), gait (p<0.001; α= 0.898), mobility (p<0.001; α=0.810) and total score (p<0.001; α=0.917).
There was high significance and reliability among the three evaluators for all items of the Modified Merle d'Aubigné and Postel Method, suggesting that this method is reliable, provided its items are parameterized and previous training of evaluators is carried out. Level of Evidence II, Diagnostic Study.
评估改良Merle d'Aubigné和Postel方法的评估者间再现性。
45例患者参与研究,平均年龄57.93(±13.35)岁,均接受了全髋关节置换术。所有患者均由三名研究人员进行评估,这些研究人员接受了标准化评估标准的培训。采用改良Merle d'Aubigné和Postel方法(前缀A、B和C的组合)在同一天随机进行评估,评估过程中研究人员彼此不互通信息。对于活动度评估,采用通用角度计进行被动髋关节活动并测量。通过Cronbach检验进行统计分析(p≤0.05且0.7≤α<1.0)。
统计分析显示,对于以下项目,评估者间可靠性显著较高:前缀(p<0.001;α = 0.961)、疼痛(p<0.001;α = 0.892)、步态(p<0.001;α = 0.898)、活动度(p<0.001;α = 0.810)和总分(p<0.001;α = 0.917)。
改良Merle d'Aubigné和Postel方法的所有项目在三名评估者之间具有高度显著性和可靠性,这表明该方法可靠,前提是其项目经过参数化处理且评估者进行了前期培训。证据级别II,诊断性研究。