Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh EH164SA, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
University of Edinburgh Chancellor's Building, 51 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh EH164SA, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Knee. 2020 Oct;27(5):1396-1405. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2020.07.098. Epub 2020 Aug 15.
The aim of this study was to assess the reliability of the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) collected verbally compared with the validated written score, using a population of patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty (TKR).
Ninety patients (mean age 70.6; (43-92), 56.7% female) undergoing TKR were prospectively assessed. One group (n = 45) completed written (standard) and verbal (over the telephone) OKS preoperatively, half (n = 23) performed the written questionnaire first followed by the verbal questionnaire, and the other half (n = 22) performed this in reverse. A separate group (n = 45) completed the same regime one year postoperatively.
A mean difference of 0.63 (95% CI -0.985-2.23) points between verbal and written OKS was observed preoperatively, and of 1.36 (95% CI -0.942-3.65) points was observed at one year postoperatively. Excellent reliability was observed using 'average measures' intra-class coefficient for the OKS preoperatively (r = 0.848) and at one year postoperatively (r = 0.970) in both groups who had written scores performed first, and those who had verbal scores performed first (preoperative r = 0.780, one year r = 892). Bland and Altman plots demonstrated consistent correlation between patients reporting their preoperative score and one-year postoperative score verbally and written. There was no significant variation between groups who had written scores performed prior to verbal, compared with those who reported verbal scores prior to written.
Prospective written collection of OKS remains the benchmark. However, verbal recording of OKS is not clinically different to written score, and may be a useful alternative to OKS in patients who are unable to attend or complete written questionnaires.
本研究旨在评估牛津膝关节评分（OKS）的口头收集与经过验证的书面评分的可靠性，研究对象为接受全膝关节置换术（TKR）的患者。
前瞻性评估了 90 名接受 TKR 的患者（平均年龄 70.6 岁（43-92），56.7%为女性）。一组（n=45）术前完成书面（标准）和口头（电话）OKS，其中一半（n=23）先完成书面问卷，再完成口头问卷，另一半（n=22）则相反。另一组（n=45）在术后一年完成相同的方案。
术前口头和书面 OKS 之间的平均差异为 0.63（95%CI-0.985-2.23）点，术后一年为 1.36（95%CI-0.942-3.65）点。在书面评分先完成的两组（术前 r=0.848，术后 r=0.970）和口头评分先完成的两组（术前 r=0.780，术后 r=0.892）中，OKS 的平均测量值的内部一致性系数均显示出极好的可靠性。 Bland 和 Altman 图显示，术前和术后一年口头和书面报告患者评分之间存在一致的相关性。书面评分先完成的组与口头评分先完成的组之间没有显著差异。
前瞻性书面收集 OKS 仍然是基准。然而，口头记录 OKS 与书面评分并无明显差异，对于无法参加或完成书面问卷的患者，口头记录 OKS 可能是 OKS 的一种有用替代方法。
