Evidence‐based evaluation of owner‐reported outcome measures for canine orthopedic care – a COSMIN evaluation of 6 instruments. Issue 2 (27th December 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Radke, Heidi; Joeris, Alexander; Chen, Maio
• Is Part Of: Veterinary surgery. Volume 51:Issue 2(2022)
• Page Start: 244
• Page End: 253
• Publication Date: 2021-12-27
• Subjects: Veterinary surgery -- Periodicals; Veterinary Medicine -- Periodicals; Surgery -- Periodicals; Societies, Medical -- Periodicals; 636.0897
• DOI: 10.1111/vsu.13753
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0161-3499

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To systematically review the currently available validated owner‐reported outcome measures (OROMs) for assessing pain and function in dogs with osteoarthritis and other joint diseases. Study design: Systematic review. Methods: A systematic literature search of PubMed and Web of Science was performed in December, 2019, using search terms relevant to OROMs for pain and function in dogs with osteoarthritis and other joint diseases. The measurement properties of the resulting outcome instruments and validation studies were evaluated with the Consensus‐Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). Results: Seventeen publications describing the validation of 6 OROMs were selected and evaluated with the COSMIN. The Canine Brief Pain Inventory (CBPI), Canine Orthopedic Index (COI), and Liverpool Osteoarthritis in Dogs (LOAD) provided evidence of sufficient content validity. Internal consistency, reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness were the most frequently validated other properties. Both CBPI and COI had sufficient internal consistency; LOAD, being formative in construct, need not be assessed for internal consistency. No instruments provided information on measurement errors. Conclusion: The CBPI, COI, and LOAD can be recommended for use in dogs with osteoarthritis. Further evidence is necessary to increase the interpretability of these instruments or expand their application into other canine orthopedic conditions. Further evidence is also needed before the other 3 instruments can be recommended. Clinical significance: This systematic evaluation of 6 OROMs provides clinicians and researchers with a tool that facilitates and improves evidence‐based selection of outcome measures for evaluating canine osteoarthritis and other joint disease treatments.