Kearney, Rebecca S., Achten, Juul, Lamb, S. E. (Sallie E.), Parsons, Nicholas R. and Costa, Matthew L.. (2012) The Achilles tendon total rupture score : a study of responsiveness, internal consistency and convergent validity on patients with acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, Vol.10 (No.1). p. 24. ISSN 1477-7525

Preview

PDF WRAP_Kearney_1477-7525-10-24.pdf - Published Version - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader Download (232Kb)

Abstract

Background The Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score was developed by a research group in 2007 in response to the need for a patient reported outcome measure for this patient population. Beyond this original development paper, no further validation studies have been published. Consequently the purpose of this study was to evaluate internal consistency, convergent validity and responsiveness of this newly developed patient reported outcome measure within patients who have sustained an isolated acute Achilles tendon rupture. Methods Sixty-four eligible patients with an acute rupture of their Achilles tendon completed the Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score alongside two further patient reported outcome measures (Disability Rating Index and EQ 5D). These were completed at baseline, six weeks, three months, six months and nine months post injury. The Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score was evaluated for internal consistency, using Cronbach's alpha, convergent validity, through correlation analysis and responsiveness, by analysing floor and ceiling effects and calculating its relative efficiency in comparison to the Disability Rating Index and EQ 5D scores. Results The Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbachs alpha > 0.8) and correlated significantly (p < 0.001) with the Disability Rating Index at five time points (pre-injury, six weeks, three, six and nine months) with correlation coefficients between -0.5 and -0.9. However, the confidence intervals were wide. Furthermore, the ability of the new score to detect clinically important changes over time (responsiveness) was shown to be greater than the Disability Rating Index and EQ 5D. Conclusions A universally accepted outcome measure is imperative to allow comparisons to be made across practice. This is the first study to evaluate aspects of validity of this newly developed outcome measure, outside of the developing centre. The ATRS demonstrated high internal consistency and responsiveness, with limited convergent validity. This research provides further support for the use of this outcome measure, however further research is required to advocate its universal use in patients with acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Such areas include inter-rater reliability and research to determine the minimally clinically important difference between scores.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	R Medicine > R Medicine (General)
Divisions:	Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Achilles tendon -- Wounds and injuries, Outcome assessment (Medical care), Clinical trials
Journal or Publication Title:	Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Publisher:	Bio Med Central
ISSN:	1477-7525
Date:	29 February 2012
Volume:	Vol.10
Number:	No.1
Page Range:	p. 24
Identification Number:	10.1186/1477-7525-10-24
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Publication Status:	Published
Access rights to Published version:	Open Access
Funder:	Arthritis Research UK
References:	1. Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR: Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technology Assessment 1998, 2:i-iv, 1-74. 2. Robinson JM, Cook JL, Purdam C, Visentini PJ, Ross J, Maffulli N, Taunton JE, Khan KM: The VISA-A questionnaire: a valid and reliable index of the clinical severity of Achilles tendinopathy. Br J Sports Med 2001, 35:335-41. 3. Visentini PJ, Khan KM, Cook JL, Kiss ZS, Harcourt PR, Wark JD: The VISA score: an index of severity of symptoms in patients with jumper’s knee (patellar tendinosis). Victorian Institute of Sport Tendon Study Group. J Sci Med Sport 1998, 1:22-28. 4. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D: Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996, 78:185-190. 5. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A: Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998, 80:63-69. 6. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C: Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med 1996, 29:602-608. 7. Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS, Nunley JA, Myerson MS, Sanders M: Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int 1994, 15:349-353. 8. Thermann H, Frerichs O, Biewener A, Krettek C, Schandelmeier P: Functional treatment of acute rupture of the Achilles tendon. An experimental biomechanical study. Unfallchirurg 1995, 98:507-513. 9. Leppilahti J, Forsman K, Puranen J, Orava S: Outcome and prognostic factors of achilles rupture repair using a new scoring method. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1998, 456:152-161. 10. Nilsson-Helander K, Thomee R, Gravare-Silbernagel K, Thomee P, Faxen E, Eriksson BI, Karlsson J: The Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS): development and validation. American Journal of Sports Medicine 2007, 35:421-426. 11. Thompson TC, Doherty JH: Spontaneous rupture of tendon of Achilles: a new clinical diagnostic test. Journal of Trauma 1962, 2:126-129. 12. Salen BA, Spangfort EV, Nygren AL, Nordemar R: The Disability Rating Index: an instrument for the assessment of disability in clinical settings. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1994, 47:1423-1435. 13. Brooks R: EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996, 37:53-72. 14. Kearney R, Achten J, Plant C, Lamb S, Costa M: A systematic review of patient reported outcome measures used to asess Achilles tendon rupture management: What’s being used and should we be using it? British Journal of Sports Medicine 2011. 15. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC: Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2007, 60:34-42. 16. Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Rippstein PF: Which are the most frequently used outcome instruments in studies on total ankle arthroplasty? Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2010, 468:815-826. 17. Bland JM, Altman DG: Cronbach’s alpha. British Medical Journal 1997, 314:572. 18. Barr S, Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Chalmers A, Ford PM, Kean WF, Kraag GR, Gerecz-Simon E, Campbell J: A comparative study of signal versus aggregate methods of outcome measurement based on the WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Journal of Rheumatology 1994, 21:2106-2112. 19. Kessler RC, Mroczek DK: Measuring the effects of medical interventions. Medical Care 1995, 33:AS109-AS119. 20. Donovan JL, Frankel SJ, Eyles JD: Assessing the need for health status measures. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 1993, 47:158-162.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/43384

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item