Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 7, 2025
The Lower Body Positive Pressure Treadmill for Knee Osteoarthritis Rehabilitation
Published on: July 22, 2019
High variation among clinical studies in the assessment of physical function after knee replacement: a systematic
Marco Adriani1, Roland Becker2,3, Giuseppe Milano4,5
1Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences, and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy. m.adriani93@gmail.com.
Purpose:
The purpose of this study was to summarise the current use of outcome measures for the assessment of physical function after knee joint replacement.
Methods:
A systematic approach following the PRISMA guidelines was used. Literature search was performed on MEDLINE database via PubMed and on Epistemonikos. Clinical trials (level of evidence I-II) on knee joint replacement reporting data on the 'physical function' domain published between January 2017 and June 2022 were included. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the evidence.
Results:
In the 181 articles that met the inclusion criteria, 49 different outcome measurements were used to evaluate clinical outcomes after knee joint replacement. The most frequently adopted patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were the Knee Society Score (KSS) (78 studies; 43.1%), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Arthritis Index (62 studies; 34.3%), the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) (51 studies; 28.2%) and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) (36 studies; 20%). The most frequently used performance-based outcome measures (PBOMs) were the Timed-Up-and-Go (TUG) test (30 studies; 16.6%) and the 6-min-walk test (6MWT) (21 studies; 11.6%). Among impairment-based outcome measures (IBOMs), range of motion (ROM) was the most used (74 studies; 40.9%).
Conclusion:
There is considerable variation among clinical studies regarding the assessment of the physical function of patients after knee joint replacement. PROMs were found to be the most commonly adopted outcome measures; however, no single PROM was used in more than half of the papers analysed.
Level Of Evidence:
Level II, systematic review of level I-II studies.
