A critical appraisal of quantitative arthroscopy as an outcome measure in osteoarthritis of the knee.

Background And Objectives: To review the performance of arthroscopic assessment of articular cartilage damage in osteoarthritis.

Methods: The literature was reviewed for publications containing data regarding validity and reliability of arthroscopic systems of cartilage evaluation in knee osteoarthritis.

Results: Fifty-two distinct measurement systems were identified in 60 publications. There were 30 simple severity-scoring systems, 3 global visual analogue scale systems, and 19 composite systems. No systems consisted solely of measurements of lesion size or site, although 13 systems used either or both of these for the calculation of composite scores. Only 6 publications (10%) undertook any reliability evaluation and these generally used inappropriate methods of statistical analysis. Thirty-five publications (58%) evaluated validity. Construct validity was tested using several constructs (clinical in 2, magnetic resonance imaging in 10, radiographs in 10, or other arthroscopic assessments in 5 publications). Criterion validity was ascertained by using several methods including cartilage histology, histochemistry, or biomechanics in 10 publications. Responsiveness was determined in 1 publication.

Discussion: Many publications evaluated composite systems but only a few evaluated fundamental aspects of arthroscopic measurement. Conceptually, composite scoring systems have the best validity; however, at present, there is only enough evidence to support the use of simple chondropathy severity scores and there are little data on the responsiveness of these methods. A proposed program for comprehensive evaluation and development of valid and responsive arthroscopic assessments of articular cartilage is outlined.