The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Responsiveness of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form in Comparison to the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Modified Cincinnati Knee Rating System, and Short Form 36 in Patients with Focal Articular Cartilage Defects
Abstract
Background: The International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC SKF) is a patient-reported knee-specific outcome measure that has been shown to be a reliable, valid, and responsive measure for patients with a variety of knee conditions. Further testing is required to compare the reliability and responsiveness of the IKDC SKF to other commonly used patient-reported outcome measures for patients with articular cartilage lesions. Hypothesis: The IKDC SKF has equal or better levels of reliability and responsiveness than the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), modified Cincinnati Knee Rating System (CKRS), and the Short Form 36 in patients with articular cartilage lesions. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Reliability was assessed by administering the 4 patient-reported outcome measures to 17 individuals who had undergone articular cartilage surgery 5 years before participation in this study. Responsiveness was determined by administering the 4 patient-reported outcome measures to 51 individuals with diagnosed focal articular cartilage defects who were scheduled to undergo surgical treatment. In both groups, the outcome measures were administered at baseline and at 6 and 12 months’ follow-up. Participants also provided a global rating of change in comparison to baseline at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Results: Test-retest reliability coefficients were 0.91 and 0.93 for the IKDC SKF at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups, respectively. The effect sizes and standardized response means were large (>0.80) at 6 months after surgery for the WOMAC pain, physical function, and total scores and 12 months after surgery for the IKDC SKF; WOMAC pain, physical function, and total; and CKRS scores. Six months after surgery, significant differences between those who were improved compared with those who were unchanged or worse were found only for the IKDC SKF. Twelve months after surgery, significant differences between the improved and unchanged groups were found for all of the knee-specific patient-reported outcome measures. Finally, the IKDC SKF, WOMAC, and CKRS scores were able to differentiate between individuals who perceived themselves to be improved versus not improved and the minimum clinically important difference for the IKDC SKF was 6.3 at 6 months and 16.7 at 12 months. Conclusion: The reliability and responsiveness of the IKDC SKF is comparable with other commonly used patient-reported outcome measures for patients with articular cartilage lesions. The IKDC SKF is a suitable alternative to other commonly used knee-specific instruments for measuring symptoms, daily function, and level of symptom-free sports activity in patients undergoing articular cartilage surgery.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(1990) · Computers, Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,269
Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory
Crocker, L. M., & Algina, J. J. (1986) · Cited by 5,090
Development and validation of the international knee documentation committee subjective knee form
Irrgang, J. J., Anderson, A. F., Boland, A. L., Harner, C. D., Kurosaka, M., Neyret, P., Richmond, J. C., & Shelborne, K. D. (2001) · The American Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1177/03635465010290051301 · Cited by 2,204
Self-citationEvaluation of knee ligament injuries with the IKDC form
Hefti, F., Müller, W., Jakob, R. P., & Stäubli, H. ‐. (1993) · Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy · doi:10.1007/bf01560215 · Cited by 1,569
Methods for assessing responsiveness
Husted, J. A., Cook, R. J., Farewell, V. T., & Gladman, D. D. (2000) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(99)00206-1 · Cited by 1,471
Measuring the whole or the parts?
Beaton, D. E., Katz, J. N., Fossel, A. H., Wright, J. G., Tarasuk, V., & Bombardier, C. (2001) · Journal of Hand Therapy · doi:10.1016/s0894-1130(01)80043-0 · Cited by 1,306
Comparisons of Five Health Status Instruments for Orthopedic Evaluation
Liang, M. H., Fossel, A. H., & Larson, M. G. (1990) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199007000-00008 · Cited by 914
Deyo, R. A., & Centor, R. M. (1986) · Journal of Chronic Diseases · doi:10.1016/0021-9681(86)90038-x · Cited by 792
The International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form: Normative Data
Anderson, A. F., Irrgang, J. J., Kocher, M. S., Mann, B. J., Harrast, J. J., & Members of the International Knee Documentation Committee (2006) · The American Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1177/0363546505280214 · Cited by 476
Self-citationResponsiveness of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form
Irrgang, J. J., Anderson, A. F., Boland, A. L., Harner, C. D., Neyret, P., Richmond, J. C., Shelbourne, K. D., & International Knee Documentation Committee (2006) · The American Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1177/0363546506288855 · Cited by 461
Self-citation
Cited by
How to write a systematic review
Harris, J. D., Quatman, C. E., Manring, M. M., Siston, R. A., & Flanigan, D. C. (2014) · The American Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1177/0363546513497567 · Cited by 606
Harris, J. D., Brand, J. C., Cote, M. P., Faucett, S. C., & Dhawan, A. (2017) · Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2017.01.053 · Cited by 498
Rehabilitation After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review
Kruse, L. M., Gray, B., & Wright, R. W. (2012) · Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery · doi:10.2106/jbjs.k.01246 · Cited by 323
Lower Extremity-Specific Measures of Disability and Outcomes in Orthopaedic Surgery
Smith, M. V., Klein, S. E., Clohisy, J. C., Baca, G. R., Brophy, R. H., & Wright, R. W. (2012) · Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery · doi:10.2106/jbjs.j.01822 · Cited by 270
Cook, J., Hislop, J., Adewuyi, T., Harrild, K., Altman, D., Ramsay, C., Fraser, C., Buckley, B., Fayers, P., Harvey, I., et al. (2014) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta18280 · Cited by 194
Metadata
- Authors
- Greco, N. J., Anderson, A. F., Mann, B. J., Cole, B. J., Farr, J., Nissen, C. W., & Irrgang, J. J.
- Venue
- The American Journal of Sports Medicine
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-12-31
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 891-902
- ISSN
- 0363-5465 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3365
- OpenAlex
- W2143328793
- Cited by
- 257
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 4.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Responsiveness of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form in Comparison to the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Modified Cincinnati Knee Rating System, and Short Form 36 in Patients with Focal Articular Cartilage Defects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0363546509354163
- The paper
- Greco, N. J., Anderson, A. F., Mann, B. J., Cole, B. J., Farr, J., Nissen, C. W., & Irrgang, J. J. (2010). Responsiveness of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form in Comparison to the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Modified Cincinnati Knee Rating System, and Short Form 36 in Patients with Focal Articular Cartilage Defects. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546509354163
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.