The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) in Persian Speaking Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis

Document Type : RESEARCH PAPER

Authors

Orthopedic Research Center, Ghaem Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences , Ahmad-abad St,Mashhad, 91799-9199 Iran

Abstract

 
Background:
Osteoarthritis of the knee is the most common chronic joint disease that involves middle aged and elderly persons. There are different clinical instruments to quantify the health status of patients with knee osteoarthritis and one example is the WOMAC score that has been translated and adapted into different languages. The purpose of this study was cultural adaptation, validation and reliability testing of the Persian version of the WOMAC index in Iranians with knee osteoarthritis.
 
Methods:
We translated the original WOMAC questionnaire into Persian by the forward and backward technique, and then its psychometric study was done on 169 native Persian speaking patients with knee degenerative joint disease. Mean age of patients was 53.9 years. The SF-36 and KOOS were used to assess construct validity.
Results:
Reliability testing resulted in a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.917, showing the internal consistency of the questionnaire to be a reliable tool.
Inter-correlation matrix among different scales of the Persian WOMAC index yielded a highly significant correlation
between all subscales including stiffness, pain, and physical function. In terms of validity, Pearson`s correlation coefficient was significant between three domains of the WOMAC with PF, RP, BP, GH, VT, and PCS dimensions of the SF-36 health survey (P<0.005) and KOOS (P
<0.0001) .
 
Conclusions:
The Persian WOMAC index is a valid and reliable patient- reported clinical instrument for knee osteoarthritis.

Keywords

References

  1. Kurtaiş Y, Oztuna D, Küçükdeveci AA, Kutlay S, Hafiz M, Tennant A. Reliability, construct validity and measurement potential of the ICF comprehensive core set for osteoarthritis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:255.

  2. Neogi T, Felson D, Niu J, Nevitt M, Lewis CE, Aliabadi P, et al. Association betwe en radiog raphic feat ures of kne e oste oarthritis and pain: results from two coh ort studies. BMJ. 2009;339: 2844.

  3. Haq SA, Davatchi F. Osteoarthritis of the knees in the COPCORD world. Int J Rheum Dis. 2011; 14(2):122-9.

  4. Lysholm J, Tegner Y. Knee injury rating scales. Acta Orthop. 2007;78(4):445-53.

  5. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1998;15: 1833–40.

  6. Villanueva I, del Mar Guzman M, Javier Toyos F, Ariza-Ariza R, Navarro F. Relative efficiency and validity properties of a visual analogue vs a categorical scaled version of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) Index: Spanish versions. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2004;12:225-31.

  7. Escobar A, Quintana JM, Bilbao A, Azkárate J, Güenaga JI. Validation o f the Spanish Version of the WOMAC Questionnaire for Patients with Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2002; 21(6):466-71.

  8. Stucki G, Meier D, Stucki S, Michel BA, Tyndall AG, Dick W, et al. Evaluation of a German version of WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) Arthrosis Index. Z Rheumatol. 1996; 55(1):40-9.

  9. Cheung RT, Ngai SP, Lam PL, Chiu JK, Fung EY. Chinese translation and validation of the Kujala scale for patients with patellofemoral pain. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(6):510-3.

  10. Hashimoto H, Hanyu T, Sledge CB, Lingard EA. Validation of a Japanese patient-derived outcome scale for assessing total knee arthroplasty: comparison with Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC). J Orthop Sci. 2003; 8: 288-93.

  11. Tüzün EH, Eker L, Aytar A, Daşkapan A, Bayramoğlu M. Acceptability, reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Turkish version of WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2005;13(1):28-33.

  12. Guermazi M, Poiraudeau S, Yahia M, Mezganni M, Fermanian J, Habib Elleuch M, et al. Translation, adaptation and validation of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) for an Arab population: the Sfax modified WOMAC. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2004;12(6):459-68.

  13. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988; 15:1833-40.

  14. Montazeri A, Goshtasebi A, Vahdaninia M, Gandek B.The Short Form Health Survey (SF-36): Translation and validation study of the Iranian version. Quality of Life Research. 2005;14: 875-82.

  15. Roos EM, Toksvig-Larsen S. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) – validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:17.

  16. Salavati M, Mazaheri M, Negahban H, Sohani SM, Ebrahimian MR, Ebrahimi I, et al. Validation of a Persian-version of Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in Iranians with knee injuries. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008;16(10):1178-82.

  17. Vaquero J, Longo UG, Forriol F, Martinelli N, Vethencourt R, Denaro V. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Spanish version of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in patients with chondral lesion of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014; 22(1):104-8.

  18. Örtqvist M, Roos EM, Broström EW, Janarv PM, Iversen MD. Development of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for children (KOOS-Child): comprehensibility and content validity. Acta Orthop. 2012;83(6):666-73.

  19. Briem K. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Icelandic version of the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS). Laeknabladid. 2012; 98(7-8):403-7.

  20. Salavati M, Akhbari B, Mohammadi F, Mazaheri M, Khorrami M. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS); reliability and validity in competitive athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2011;19(4):406-10.

  21. Gonçalves RS, Cabri J, Pinheiro JP, Ferreira PL, Gil J. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Portuguese version of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score--Physical Function Short-form (KOOS-PS). Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010; 18(3): 372-6.

  22. Davis AM, Perruccio AV, Canizares M, Hawker GA, Roos EM, Maillefert JF, et al. Comparative, validity and responsiveness of the HOOS-PS and KOOS-PS to the WOMAC physical function subscale in total joint replacement for osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2009;17(7):843-7.

  23. Questionnaires, user’s guides and scoring files; Available at: http://www.koos.nu/index.html 2012.

  24. Frobell RB, Roos HP, Roos EM, Roemer FW, Ranstam J, Lohmander LS. Republished research: treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tear: five year outcome of randomised trial . Br J Sports Med. 2013;47:373.

  25. Hare KB, Lohmander LS, Christensen R, Roos EM. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy in middle-aged patients with mild or no knee osteoarthritis: a protocol for a double-blind, randomized sham-controlled multi-centre trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:71.

  26. De Coninck T, Huysse W, Willemot L, Verdonk R, Verstraete K, Verdonk P. Two-year follow-up study on clinical and radiological outcomes of polyurethane meniscal scaffolds. Am J Sports Med. 2013; 41(1):64-72.

  27. Shah SM, Dutton AQ, Liang S, Dasde S. Bicompartmental Versus Total Knee Arthroplasty for Medio-patellofemoral Osteoarthritis: A Comparison of Early Clinical and Functional Outcomes. J Knee Surg. 2013;26(6):411-6.

  28. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(12):1417-32.

  29. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34-42.

  30. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951; 16: 297-334.

  31. Nunally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. 3 ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.

  32. van den Akker-Scheek I, van Raay JJ, Reininga IH, Bulstra SK, Zijlstra W, Stevens M. Reliability and concurrent validity of the Dutch hip and knee replacement expectations surveys. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010;11:242.

  33. Salaffi F, Leardini G, Canesi B, Mannoni A, Fioravanti A, Caporali R, et al. Reliability and validity of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index in Italian patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2003;11(8):551-60.

  34. Roos EM, Klässbo M, Lohmander LS. WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness in patients with arthroscopically assessed osteoarthritis. Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities. Scand J Rheumatol. 1999;28(4):210-5.

  35. Guermazi M, Poiraudeau S, Yahia M, Mezganni M, Fermanian J, Habib Elleuch M, et al. Validation of a proposed WOMAC short form for patients with hip osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9:75.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 03 August 2013
  • Revise Date: 16 December 2014
  • Accept Date: 10 February 2014

Share

How to cite

Statistics