Table 1.
Comparison of pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcome tools
| Instrument | Preoperative | Postoperative | Preoperative Floor Effect (n, %)* |
Postoperative Ceiling Effect (n, %)* |
Pre/post t statistic† |
Pre/post p value |
Effect size |
Standardized Response Mean |
Relative Efficiency‡ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HOOSglobal | 52.1 ± 14.6 | 74.5 ± 17.8 | 2 (<1%) | 49 (16%) | 20.96 | 1.5 | 1.2 | - | |
| HOOS, JR | 62.3 ± 18.6 | 84.2 ± 17.0 | 2 (<1%) | 110 (36%) | 19.5 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.16 | |
| HOOS-PS | 68.1 ± 19.3 | 87.3 ± 14.4 | 2 (<1%) | 90 (30%) | 16.8 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.56 | |
| WOMAC | 66.3 ± 21.0 | 88.1 ± 15.9 | 1 (<1%) | 70 (23%) | 18.76 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.25 | |
| UCLA | 6.9 ± 2.5 | 7.4 ± 2.3 | 1 (<1%) | 86 (28%) | 3.19 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 43.17 | |
| mHHS | 61.7 ± 16.3 | 84.7 ± 15.7 | 1 (<1%) | 66 (22%) | 20.05 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 1.09 | |
*
All outcome tools exceeded the 15% ceiling effect threshold postoperatively; however, the HOOSglobal had significantly fewer maximum scores postoperatively than the other PRO tools (p < 0.04 for all paired comparisons)
†
All outcome score significantly improved from the pre- to postoperative period (p < 0.01)
‡
Relative to the HOOSglobal, and Relative Efficiency values > 1 indicated greater responsiveness of the HOOSglobal