Clinical value of questionnaires & physical tests for patellofemoral pain: Validity, reliability and predictive capacity.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the most appropriate method of functional assessment for "patellofemoral pain" (PFP)/"chondromalacia patella" for its diagnostic value, (validity, reliability, sensitivity, specificity, predictive value and clinical applicability); to outline initial interpretations of the questionnaires and their appropriateness, through the cut-off points determined in their scores based on physical test and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI); to establish which methods should be used in conjunction with each other to obtain clinical diagnoses that are robust effective and efficient. METHODS: (1)Intra- and inter-observer reliability and of the relationship among PFP questionnaires/physical tests validated. (2)Predictive capacity of the questionnaires. Subject: 113 knees with PFP, assessed using "Knee-injury-and-Osteoarthritis Outcome-Score-for-Patellofemoral-pain-and-osteoarthritis" (KOOS-PF), "Kujala-Patellofemoral-Score" (KPS), "Victorian-Institute-of-Sports-Assessment-for-Patellar-tendons-questionnaire" (VISA-P), and the physical tests: "patellar-palpation", "patellar-tilt", "patellar-apprehension", "Clarke" and "squat". RESULTS: Questionnaires correlations themselves was 0.78

Assessing knee functionality: Systematic review of validated outcome measures.

BACKGROUND: Functional rating scales allow clinicians to document and quantify alterations and progression of recovery processes. There is neither awareness of numerous knee scales nor are they easy to find or compare to select the most suitable. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compile validated knee functional rating tools and analyze the methodological quality of their validation studies. Also, we aimed to provide an operational document of the outcome measures addressing descriptions of parameters, implementations, instructions, interpretations and languages, to identify the most appropriate for future interventions. METHODS: A systematic review involved a search of PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Scopus, and Dialnet databases from inception through September 2020. The main inclusion criteria were available functional rating scales/questionnaires/indexes for knees and validation studies. Methodological quality was analyzed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) and COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments Risk of Bias (COSMIN-RB). RESULTS: We selected 73 studies. The studies investigated 41 knee rating tools (general, 46%, and specific, 54%) and 71 validations, including 29,742 individuals with knee disorders. QUADAS-2 obtained the best results in patient selection and index test (applicability section). COSMIN-RB showed the highest quality in construct validity (most analyzed metric property). The specific tools were mainly designed for prosthesis and patellofemoral and anterior cruciate ligament injuries. More considered issues were specific function (93%), especially gait, pain/sensitivity (81%), and physical activity/sports (56%). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: We conducted a necessary, useful, unlimited-by-time and feasible compilation of validated tools for assessing knee functional recovery. The methodological quality of the validations was limited. The best validations were for the Copenhagen Knee Range of Motion Scale in osteoarthritis and arthroplasties, Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living and Lysholm Knee Score for general knee disorders and the Tegner Activity Score for anterior cruciate ligament injuries. The operational document for the scales provides necessary data to identify the most appropriate.