Background The electronic Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (e-WOMAC) is widely used for clinical evaluation of joint diseases. However, its validation and application in China remain limited. This study aimed to test and compare the reliability and comparability of the paper version (p-WOMAC) and electronic version (e-WOMAC) of WOMAC in Chinese patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Objective The study aims to provide valuable evidence on the feasibility and reliability of using electronic assessment tools to evaluate knee osteoarthritis (KOA) in the Chinese population through a rigorous evaluation of two versions of the WOMAC index. Methods A total of 70 patients with KOA were recruited from the Orthopedic Outpatient Department of Shuguang Hospital and randomly assigned to group A or group B. Group A completed the p-WOMAC first, followed by e-WOMAC 15 min later, while group B completed the assessments in the reverse order. A cross-design analysis of variance, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis, and Bland–Altman analysis were performed to compare the differences and consistency between the two versions. Results Among the 70 participants, no significant demographic differences were observed between the groups (P > 0.05). The stage of administration and assessment method did not result in significant differences in individual or total scores between p-WOMAC and e-WOMAC (P > 0.05). Both formats demonstrated excellent reliability, with ICC values exceeding 0.96 for all subscales (pain, stiffness, and function). The Bland–Altman analysis showed that the absolute differences between p-WOMAC and e-WOMAC scores were within acceptable ranges: 12.4 for total score, 3.7 for pain, 1.49 for stiffness, and 10.2 for function, with mean differences of − 1.5, − 0.3, − 0.18, and − 1.0, respectively. Only a small proportion of participants (2.86% to 5.71%) had scores outside the 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Conclusions This study confirms the reliability and equivalence of the e-WOMAC compared to the p-WOMAC in Chinese patients with KOA, supporting its use in clinical management and research. <Table Float="No" ID="Taba"> <tgroup cols="2"> <colspec align="left" colname="c1" colnum="1" /> <colspec align="left" colname="c2" colnum="2" /> <tbody> <row> <entry align="left" nameend="c2" namest="c1"> Key Points • First validation of the Chinese e-WOMAC confirms equivalence to the paper version in KOA patients, addressing a critical digital health gap in China. • High patient preference for e-WOMAC underscores its feasibility for clinical integration, aligning with global digital healthcare advancements. </entry> </row> </tbody> </tgroup> </Table>

Test the reliability and comparability of the paper version and electronic version of the Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index in Chinese language: a randomized, cross-sectional study

期刊论文
发表日期：

2025年9月11日

查看全文

Ye Zhao,
Yujie Zhang,
Kaoqiang Liu,
Yongli Chai,
Huamei Yan,
Feng Lin,
Hongsheng Zhan,
Yuxin Zheng,
Weian Yuan

摘要

Background

The electronic Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (e-WOMAC) is widely used for clinical evaluation of joint diseases. However, its validation and application in China remain limited. This study aimed to test and compare the reliability and comparability of the paper version (p-WOMAC) and electronic version (e-WOMAC) of WOMAC in Chinese patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA).

Objective

The study aims to provide valuable evidence on the feasibility and reliability of using electronic assessment tools to evaluate knee osteoarthritis (KOA) in the Chinese population through a rigorous evaluation of two versions of the WOMAC index.

Methods

A total of 70 patients with KOA were recruited from the Orthopedic Outpatient Department of Shuguang Hospital and randomly assigned to group A or group B. Group A completed the p-WOMAC first, followed by e-WOMAC 15 min later, while group B completed the assessments in the reverse order. A cross-design analysis of variance, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis, and Bland–Altman analysis were performed to compare the differences and consistency between the two versions.

Results

Among the 70 participants, no significant demographic differences were observed between the groups (P > 0.05). The stage of administration and assessment method did not result in significant differences in individual or total scores between p-WOMAC and e-WOMAC (P > 0.05). Both formats demonstrated excellent reliability, with ICC values exceeding 0.96 for all subscales (pain, stiffness, and function). The Bland–Altman analysis showed that the absolute differences between p-WOMAC and e-WOMAC scores were within acceptable ranges: 12.4 for total score, 3.7 for pain, 1.49 for stiffness, and 10.2 for function, with mean differences of − 1.5, − 0.3, − 0.18, and − 1.0, respectively. Only a small proportion of participants (2.86% to 5.71%) had scores outside the 95% limits of agreement (LoA).

Conclusions

This study confirms the reliability and equivalence of the e-WOMAC compared to the p-WOMAC in Chinese patients with KOA, supporting its use in clinical management and research.

Key Points

• First validation of the Chinese e-WOMAC confirms equivalence to the paper version in KOA patients, addressing a critical digital health gap in China.

• High patient preference for e-WOMAC underscores its feasibility for clinical integration, aligning with global digital healthcare advancements.