PDF icon Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2023; 36(06): 302-310
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1771032
Original Research

Recall Bias in Client-Reported Outcomes in Canine Orthopaedic Patients Using Clinical Metrology Instruments

Eirini Pappa 
1   Department of Small Animal Clinical Science, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Neston, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
,
Thomas W. Maddox
1   Department of Small Animal Clinical Science, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Neston, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
2   Department of Musculoskeletal and Aging Sciences, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, Liverpool, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
,
Edward Crystal
1   Department of Small Animal Clinical Science, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Neston, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
,
Eithne J. Comerford 
1   Department of Small Animal Clinical Science, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Neston, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
2   Department of Musculoskeletal and Aging Sciences, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, Liverpool, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
,
Andrew W. Tomlinson 
1   Department of Small Animal Clinical Science, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Neston, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available atVetCenter
   Permissions and Reprints
Preview

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of client recollection of their dogs' preconsultation status using clinical metrology instruments such as the Liverpool Osteoarthritis in Dogs (LOAD) and Canine Brief Pain Inventory (CBPI) questionnaires in dogs presenting to a referral orthopaedic clinic.

Study Design This is a longitudinal prospective cohort study of client-owned dogs presenting for investigations of lameness (n = 217). LOAD and CBPI questionnaires were completed by the owners at the first consultation (T0). Owners were contacted at 2 (T1), 6 (T2), and 12 (T3) months and asked to recall their dogs' T0 status by completing another LOAD and CBPI questionnaire. The agreement between the T0 and recalled LOAD and CBPI scores was determined using the two-way mixed effects intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to determine the difference between scores.

Results For the LOAD scores, there was moderate agreement between T0 and T1 (ICC: 0.64) and T0 and T2 (ICC: 0.53) scores and poor agreement between T0 and T3 (ICC: 0.496). For the CBPI Pain Severity Scores, there was poor agreement between T0 and all three subsequent time points (ICC < 0.5). For the CBPI Pain Interference Scores, there was moderate agreement between T0 and T1 (ICC: 0.57) and T2 (ICC: 0.56) scores and poor agreement between T0 and T3 (ICC: 0.43).

Conclusion The LOAD and CBPI questionnaires are subject to recall bias. Studies reporting retrospectively acquired CMI data should be interpreted with caution.

Keywords

recall bias - LOAD - CBPI - clinical metrology instrument (CMI)

Authors' Contribution

E.P. contributed to acquisition of data, data analysis and interpretation, writing of the original draft, reviewing, and editing of the manuscript and approved the submitted manuscript. T.W.M. performed the analysis and interpretation of data, wrote, reviewed, and approved the submitted manuscript. E.C. contributed to acquisition of data and approved the submitted manuscript. E.J.C. contributed to study design, reviewing, and editing of the manuscript and approved the submitted manuscript. A.W.T. contributed to conception of the study, study design, data analysis and interpretation, writing, reviewing, and editing of the manuscript and approved the submitted manuscript.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 27 June 2022

Accepted: 07 June 2023

Article published online:
31 July 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany