The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate all evidence on measurement properties of the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score - Physical function Shortform (HOOS-PS) and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score - Physical function Shortform (KOOS-PS).
This study was conducted according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs. MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL and PsychINFO through February 2019 were searched. Eligible studies evaluated patients with hip or knee complaints and described a measurement property, interpretability, feasibility, or the development of either the HOOS-PS or KOOS-PS.
Twenty-three studies were included. For both questionnaires, the content validity was found inconsistent and the quality evidence was moderate for a sufficient reliability and high for an insufficient construct validity. The HOOS-PS had a high quality evidence of sufficient structural validity and internal consistency (pooled Cronbach's alpha 0.80; n = 3761) and low quality evidence of sufficient measurement error and indeterminate responsiveness. Concerning the KOOS-PS, the quality evidence was high for an insufficient responsiveness, moderate for an inconsistent structural validity and internal consistency and low for an inconsistent measurement error.
PROSPERO number CRD42017069539.
The inconsistent evidence for content validity implies that scores on the HOOS-PS and KOOS-PS may inadequately reflect physical functioning. Furthermore, there is evidence for insufficient construct validity and responsiveness in patients with knee osteoarthritis receiving conservative treatment. Using the HOOS-PS or KOOS-PS as outcome measurement instruments for comparing outcomes, measuring improvements or benchmarking in patients with hip or knee complaints or undergoing arthroplasty should only be done with great caution.