Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Responder Criteria and Minimal Detectable Change 3–12 Years Following a Youth Sport-Related Knee Injury

The applicability of thresholds that constitute an acceptable score or meaningful change on the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in cohorts ≥ 5 years following knee injury is not well understood. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the association between intra-articular knee injury type and two different KOOS pain thresholds (patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) and Englund symptomatic knee criteria) in the Alberta Youth Prevention of Osteoarthritis (PrE-OA) cohort, which includes participants 3–12 years following a youth sport-related knee injury and uninjured controls with similar age, sex and sport characteristics. Analyses accounted for sex, time since injury and the interaction between time since injury and injury type. Secondary objectives were to report proportions meeting thresholds for KOOS outcomes and minimal detectable change (MDC) from published test–retest reliability data, over a 1–4-year follow-up. Two hundred and fifty-three (253) participants (124 injured, 129 controls) were included in analyses, of which 153 (77 injured, 76 controls) had follow-up data. Similar odds were observed for presence of pain (below PASS threshold) in participants with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)/meniscus injury (odds ratio (OR) 4.2 (97.5% confidence interval (CI): 1.8, 9.9)) and other knee injuries (OR 4.9 (97.5% CI: 1.2, 21.0)), while there were higher odds for presence of Englund “symptomatic knee” criteria in participants with ACL/meniscus injury (OR 13.6 (97.5% CI: 2.9, 63.4)) than other knee injuries (OR 7.3 (97.5% CI: 0.8, 63.7)) compared to controls. After a median 23.4 (8 to 42) month follow-up, 35% of previously injured participants had at least one KOOS sub-scale score that worsened by more than the MDC published threshold. Despite limited research, this study shows that individuals with youth sport knee injuries other than ACL or meniscus injury may also experience significant pain and symptoms 3–12 years following injury. Replication and further follow-up are needed to identify a possible clinical trajectory towards osteoarthritis.Medicine, Faculty ofNon UBCPhysical Therapy, Department ofReviewedFacultyResearche

Statement on methods in sport injury research from the first methods matter meeting, Copenhagen, 2019

SYNOPSIS: High-quality sports injury research can facilitate sports injury prevention and treatment. There is scope to improve how our field applies best-practice methods-methods matter (greatly!). The first METHODS MATTER meeting, held in January 2019 in Copenhagen, Denmark, was the forum for an international group of researchers with expertise in research methods to discuss sports injury methods. We discussed important epidemiological and statistical topics within the field of sports injury research. With this opinion document, we provide the main take-home messages that emerged from the meeting. Meeting participants agreed that the definition of sport injury depends on the research question and context. It was considered essential to be explicit about the goal of the research effort and to use frameworks to illustrate the assumptions that underpin measurement and the analytical strategy. Complex systems were discussed to illustrate how potential risk factors can interact in a nonlinear way. This approach is often a useful alternative to identifying single risk factors. Investigating changes in exposure status over time is important when analyzing sport injury etiology, and analyzing recurrent injury, subsequent injury, or injury exacerbation remains challenging. The choice of statistical model should consider the research question, injury measure (eg, prevalence, incidence), type and granularity of injury data (categorical or continuous), and study design. Multidisciplinary collaboration will be a cornerstone for future high-quality sport injury research. Working outside professional silos in a diverse, multidisciplinary team benefits the research process, from the formulation of research questions and designs to the statistical analyses and dissemination of study results in implementation contexts. This article has been copublished in the British Journal of Sports Medicine and the Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy