Systematic reviewMeasurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) in Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome: A systematic review
Introduction
Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome (PFPS) is a common knee disorder, with a typical pattern of symptoms characterised by anterior peripatella or retropatella knee pain (Heintjes et al., 2009, Collins et al., 2010, Hossain et al., 2011). Aggravating factors include activities or movements which either increase patellofemoral joint compression and/or produce mechanical forces in the surrounding soft tissue structures; for example: ascending/descending stairs, sitting with a flexed knee for prolonged periods, squatting, running, jumping or kneeling (Witvrouw et al., 2000, Crossley et al., 2002, Barton et al., 2008, Thijs et al., 2008, Tan et al., 2010). As many of these activities are an important part of daily life, PFPS may have a considerable impact on an individual's wellbeing (Collins et al., 2008, Tan et al., 2010). This impact may be especially debilitating as PFPS symptoms often reoccur, becoming chronic (Nimon et al., 1998, Stathopulu and Baildam, 2003, Collins et al., 2008, Boling et al., 2010).
Whilst the aetiology of PFPS is debated, there is some consensus that its development may be secondary to a functional or structural mal-alignment at the patellofemoral joint, or of the lower extremity as a whole (Powers, 2003, Barton et al., 2008, Heintjes et al., 2009, Carry et al., 2010, Hossain et al., 2011). There may be multiple interacting factors which cause mal-alignment, such as muscle strength or timing issues, altered tissue extensibility or bony morphology (Powers, 2003, Barton et al., 2008, Heintjes et al., 2009, Bennell et al., 2010).
Physiotherapy is the most common intervention in PFPS (Crossley et al., 2001, Heintjes et al., 2003), however, there is no clear consensus regarding the optimal components of a management programme. As a consequence, a wide variety of treatment techniques are employed by therapists including: quadriceps strengthening, vastus medialus obliques (VMO) muscle retraining, biofeedback, hip muscle strengthening, proximal strengthening, spinal manipulation, mobilisation, taping, knee supports, foot orthoses and stretching of the hamstrings, illiotial band, patella retinaculum or anterior hip (Crossley et al., 2002, Iverson et al., 2008, Heintjes et al., 2009, Earl and Hoch, 2011, Hossain et al., 2011, Callaghan and Selfe, 2012). In the absence of guidelines outlining the most favourable PFPS treatment options, physiotherapists should appraise their own management, utilising high quality, disease-specific, PFPS outcome measures to guide and evaluate patient care, so they may deliver efficacious treatment tailored to the individual (DoH, 2010, CSP, 2012, HCPC, 2013).
A number of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been developed to assess symptoms and function in patients with PFPS. These disease-specific measures are designed to be more sensitive to change in their target population than region-specific measures, which evaluate general knee disorders. When making the choice of which PROM to use in practice, it is important to examine their respective measurement properties, so that the optimal instrument can be confidently employed. These properties should at least satisfy existing minimum standards for PROMs, such as those presented by the International Society for Quality of Life research (Reeve et al., 2013). Previous systematic reviews that have evaluated the measurement properties of knee PROMs, have tended to focus on region-specific measures used in general knee conditions (Bellamy et al., 1997, Sun et al., 1997, Wang et al., 2010), or non-PFPS-specific musculoskeletal disorders (Smith et al., 2008, Howe et al., 2012), and not all reviews have used a validated tool to determine the quality of the included studies, for example, the COSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments) tool (Mokkink et al., 2010a) or OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) filter (Boers et al., 1998). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the measurement properties of disease-specific PROMs for PFPS, using a validated measure of methodological quality.
Section snippets
Design
A systematic review of outcomes was conducted according to a pre-defined protocol informed by the PRISMA guidelines (Liberati et al., 2009), the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Review Interventions (Higgins and Green, 2011) and the COSMIN group (Mokkink et al., 2010b).
Search strategy
The MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINHAL+ and Cochrane Library electronic databases were searched from inception to August 2013 (the MEDLINE search strategy is presented in Appendix I). All records were downloaded into Endnote© version
Study selection
The search strategy returned 2177 citations. 2155 studies were excluded by title/abstract and 22 full-text articles were retrieved for further review. Of these, 15 full-text articles were excluded as they utilised non-PFPS cohorts, PFPS was not the major complaint of the participants, or because the PFPS diagnostic criteria used by the paper did not meet the defined standards, or was missing altogether. Inter-rater agreement between the investigators during title/abstract screening was ‘good’ (k
Discussion
The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the measurement properties of disease-specific PROMs for PFPS, to aid clinicians in choosing the best instrument to inform patient management. Unfortunately, the poor methodological quality with which measurement properties were evaluated across the PROMs, makes recommending an optimal instrument problematic.
Conclusions
Several PROMs used in PFPS demonstrate structural validity including: the Flandry Questionnaire, AKPS, FIQ, EPQ, VAS-U, and VAS-W. In addition there is limited level of evidence supporting the test–retest reliability and validity (cross-cultural and hypothesis testing) of the Persian version of the AKPS, based on one study. However, no instrument possesses supporting evidence for all important measurement properties (Reeve et al., 2013). The measurement properties of PROMs in PFPS are commonly
References (56)
- et al.
Outcome measures in patellofemoral pain syndrome: test retest reliability and inter-relationships
Phys Ther Sport
(2000) - et al.
Analysis of outcome measures for persons with patellofemoral pain: which are reliable and valid?
Arch Phys Ther Rehabil Med
(2004) - et al.
Evaluation of outcome measures for use in clinical practice for adults with musculoskeletal conditions of the knee: a systematic review
Man Ther
(2012) - et al.
Scoring of patellofemoral disorders
J Arthrosc Relat Surg
(1993) - et al.
The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes
J Clin Epidemiol
(2010) - et al.
An evaluation of the clinical tests and outcome measures used to assess patellar instability
Knee
(2008) - et al.
Disability in patients with chronic patellofemoral pain syndrome: a randomised controlled trial of VMO selective training versus general quadriceps strengthening
Man Ther
(2009) - et al.
Evaluation of the scope and quality of systematic reviews on nonpharmacological conservative treatment for patellofemoral pain syndrome
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther
(2008) - et al.
Recommendations for a core set of outcome measures for future phase III clinical trials in knee, hip, and hand osteoarthritis. Consensus development at OMERACT III
J Rheumatol
(1997) - et al.
Effects of vastus medialis oblique retraining versus general quadriceps strengthening on vasti onset
Med Sci Sports Exerc
(2010)
The OMERACT filter for outcome measures in rheumatology
J Rheumatol
Biomechanical risk factors for the development of patellofemoral pain: the JUMP-ACL study… patellofemoral pain syndrome: proximal, distal, and local factors, an international research retreat, April 30–May 2, 2009, Fells Point, Baltimore, MD
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther
Patella taping for patellofemoral pain syndrome in adults
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
Adolescent patellofemoral pain: a review of evidence for the role of lower extremity biomechanics and core instability
Orthopedics
Validation of outcome measures in patients with patellofemoral syndrome
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther
Coefficient of agreement for nominal scales
Educ Psychol Meas
Statistical power analysis for social sciences
Foot orthoses and physiotherapy in the treatment of patellofemoral pain syndrome: randomised clinical trial
Br Med J
Predictors of short and long term outcome in patellofemoral pain syndrome: a prospective longitudinal study
BMC Musculoskelet Disord
A systematic review of physical interventions for patellofemoral pain syndrome
Clin J Sport Med
Physical therapy for patellofemoral pain
Am J Sports Med
Quality assurance standards for physiotherapy service delivery
Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS
A proximal strengthening program improves pain, function, and biomechanics in women with patellofemoral pain syndrome
Am J Sports Med
Evaluation of soft foot orthotics in the treatment of patellofemoral pain syndrome
Phys Ther
Analysis of subjective knee complaints using visual analogue scales
Am J Sports Med
Responsiveness of generic and specific measures of health outcome in low back pain
Spine
Analysis of outcome measures used in the study of patellofemoral pain syndrome
Physiother Can
Cited by (24)
The Comprehensive Aachen Knee Score: Development and validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure for patellofemoral pathologies
2021, KneeCitation Excerpt :Many studies show that frequently used questionnaires do not meet the central psychometric qualities, such as adequate content and structural validity [13–18]. Due to poor methodological quality of many studies that evaluate different knee PROMs, there is still no standard regarding which PROMs can be recommended for specific pathologies [19]. Based on a previous systematic review of the current literature and on the psychometric limitations that exist in the present PROMs, the present paper presents a short self-report questionnaire to address those shortcomings.
Short-term effectiveness of an intervention targeting lower limb range of motion on pain and disability in patellofemoral pain patients: A randomized, non-concurrent multiple-baseline study
2021, Journal of Bodywork and Movement TherapiesCitation Excerpt :At the start of the study we collected demographic data for gender (male/female/non-binary), age (years), body mass index (BMI), hours of sport participation per week, symptom duration (months), affected knee (left, right or bilateral), self-reported previous attempts on exercise therapy for PFP. The Anterior Knee Pain Scale (AKPS) is a 13-item patient-reported outcome questionnaire that measures pain and disability (Green et al., 2014). The items are scored on 3 to 5 response options, depending on the item.
The decline step-down test measuring the maximum pain-free flexion angle: A reliable and valid performance test in patients with patellofemoral pain
2019, Physical Therapy in SportCitation Excerpt :Special orthopedic tests have little additional value in the diagnostic process, as these suffer from low reliability and validity (Crossley, Stefanik, et al., 2016). Instruments evaluating the treatment effects include pain scores like the visual analogue scale for worst pain (VAS-W), usual pain (VAS-U) and least pain (VAS-L) (Green, Liles, Rushton, & Kyte, 2017). Specific patient related outcome measures (PROMs) like the Anterior Knee Pain Scale (AKPS) (Kujala et al., 1993) also were developed.
The influence of primary treatment approach on outcomes in patients with osteochondral fracture after patellar dislocation: a case series
2023, Knee Surgery and Related ResearchPatient-reported outcome measures for patellofemoral disorders: a systematic review
2023, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery