Concurrent validity of the Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation and hip-specific patient-reported outcome measures

The Single Assessment Numerical Evalution (SANE) score is a pragmatic alternative to longer patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). The purpose of this study was to investigate the concurrent validity of the SANE and hip-specific PROMs in a generalized population of patients with hip pain at a single timepoint upon initial visit with an orthopaedic surgeon who is a hip preservation specialist. We hypothesized that SANE would have a strong correlation with the 12-question International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT)-12, the Hip Outcome Score (HOS), and the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), providing evidence for concurrent validity of the SANE and hip-specific outcome measures in patients with hip pain.

This study was a cross-sectional retrospective database analysis at a single timepoint. Data were collected from 2,782 patients at initial evaluation with a hip preservation specialist using the iHOT-12, HOS, HOOS, and SANE. Outcome scores were retrospectively analyzed using Pearson correlation coefficients.

Mean raw scores were iHOT-12 67.01 (SD 29.52), HOS 58.42 (SD 26.26), HOOS 86.85 (SD 32.94), and SANE 49.60 (SD 27.92). SANE was moderately correlated with the iHOT-12 (r = -0.4; 95% CI -0.35 to -0.44; p < 0.001), HOS (r = 0.57; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.60; p < 0.001), and HOOS (r = -0.55; 95% CI -0.51 to -0.58; p < 0.001). The iHOT-12 and HOOS were recorded as a lower score, indicating better function, which accounts for the negative r values.

This study was the first to investigate the relationship between the SANE and the iHOT-12, HOS, and HOOS in a population of patients with hip pain at the initial evaluation with an orthopaedic surgeon, and found moderate correlation between SANE and the iHOT-12, HOS, and HOOS. The SANE may be a pragmatic alternative for clinical benchmarking in a general population of patients with hip pain. The construct validity of the SANE should be questioned compared to legacy measures whose content validity has been more rigorously investigated.