Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement

Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Series B

Volumn 80, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 63-69

  Dawson, Jill ^a   Fitzpatrick, Ray ^a   Murray, David ^a,b   Carr, Andrew ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b NUFFIELD ORTHOPAEDIC CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PERCEPTION; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RELIABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY; TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, KNEE; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OSTEOARTHRITIS; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 0031984965     PISSN: 0301620X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.80B1.7859     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Miller RK, Carr AJ. The knee. In: Pynsent P, Fairbank J, Carr A, eds. Outcome measures in orthopaedics. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann, 1993:228-44.
2. Wright JG, Rudicel S, Feinstein AR. Ask patients what they want: evaluation of individual complaints before total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1994;76-B:229-34.
3. Amadio PC. Editorial. Outcomes measurement: more questions; some answers. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1993;75-A:1583-4.
4. Fitzpatrick R, Fletcher A, Gore S, et al. Quality of life measures in health care. I: Applications and issues in assessment. BMJ 1992; 305:1074-7.
5. Kantz ME, Harris WJ, Levitsky K, Ware JE, Davies AR. Methods for assessing condition-specific and generic functional status outcomes after total knee replacement. Med Care 1992;30(5 Suppl):240-52.
6. Drewett RF, Minns RJ, Sibly TF. Measuring outcome of total knee replacement using quality of life indices. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1992; 74:286-90.
7. Bayley KB, London MR, Grunkemeier GL, Lansky DJ. Measuring the success of treatment in patient terms. Med Care 1995;33:Suppl 4, 226-35.
8. Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care 1989;27: (3 Suppl)217-32.
9. Katz JN, Larson MG, Phillips CB, Fossel AH, Liang MH. Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer health status instruments. Med Care 1992;30:917-25.
10. Fitzpatrick R, Ziebland S, Jenkinson C, Mowat A, Mowat A. A comparison of the sensitivity to change of several health status instruments in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 1993;20:429-36.
11. Cox D, Fitzpatrick R, Fletcher A, et al. Quality of life assessment: can we keep it simple? J Roy Stat Soc Series A 1992;155:353-93.
12. Cronbach L. Coefficient alpha and the internal structures of tests. Psychometrica 1951;16:297-34.
13. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;i: 307-10.
14. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop 1989;248:13-4.
15. Charnley J. The long-term results of low-friction arthroplasty of the hip performed as a primary intervention. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1972; 54-B:61-76.
16. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473-83.
17. Fries JF, Spitz PW, Young DY. The dimensions of health outcomes: the Health Assessment Questionnaire, disability and pain scales. J Rheumatol 1982;9:789-93.
18. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989;27:178-89.
19. Feinstein AR, Wells CK. A new clinical taxonomy for rating change in functional activities of patients with angina pectoris. Am Heart J 1977;93:172-82.
20. Garratt A, Ruta O, Abdalla MI, Russel IE. SF36 health survey questionnaire II: responsiveness to changes in health status in four common clinical conditions. Qual Hlth Care 1994;3:186-92.
21. Deyo RA, Inui TS. Towards clinical applications of health status measures: sensitivity of scales to clinically important changes. Health Serv Res 1984;19:277-89.
22. Carr JB, Hansen ST, Benirschke SK. Subtalar distraction bone block fusion for late complications of os calcis fractures. Foot Ankle 1988; 9:81-6.
23. Koran LM. The reliability of clinical methods, data and judgements (second of two parts). N Engl J Med 1975;293:695-701.
24. Guyatt G, Walter GS, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:171-8.
25. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A. The problem of 'noise' in monitoring patient-assessed outcomes: generic, disease-specific and site-specific instruments for total hip replacement. J Health Serv Res Policy 1996;1:224-31.
26. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988;15:1833-40.
27. Kirwan JR, Currey HL, Freeman MA, Snow S, Young PJ. Overall long-term impact of total hip and knee joint replacement surgery on patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol 1994;33:357-60.