Development of outcome research for total joint arthroplasty

Journal of Orthopaedic Science

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 175-177

  Lingard, Elizabeth ^a   Hashimoto, Hideki ^a   Sledge, Clement ^a  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Outcome research; Total joint arthroplasty

Indexed keywords

DATA ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; QUESTIONNAIRE; SHORT SURVEY; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0034058907     PISSN: 09492658     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s007760050146     Document Type: Short Survey

References (22)

1. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, et al. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient-relevant outcomes following total hip or knee arthroplasty in osteoarthritis. J Orthop Rheumatol 1988; 1:95-108.
2. Bellamy N. WOMAC osteoarthritis index: a user's guide. Victoria Hospital, London. 1995.
3. Bryant MJ, Kernohan WG, Nixon JR. et al. A statistical analysis of hip scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1993;75:705-9.
4. Buly RL, Sulco TP. Recent advances in total knee replacement surgery. Curr Opin Rheumatol 1995;7:107-13.
5. Callahan JJ, Dysart SH, Savory CF, et al. assessing the results of hip replacement: a comparison of five different rating systems. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1990;72:1008-9.
6. Drake BG, Callahan CM, Dittus RS, et al. Global rating systems used in assessing knee arthroplasty outcomes. J Arthroplasty 1994;9:409-17.
7. Fukuhara S, Bito S, Hsiao A,. et al. Translation, adaptation and validation of the SF-36 for use in Japan. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51: 1001-11.
8. Gartland JJ. Orthopaedic clinical research: deficiencies in experimental design and determinations of outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1988;70:1357-64.
9. Hashimoto H, Lingard EA, Sledge CB. Validation of the Japanese version of the WOMAC. Manuscript in preparation. Boston: Brigham and Women's Hospital, 1999.
10. Hawker G, Melfi C, Paul J, et al. Comparison of a generic (SF-36) and a disease specific (WOMAC) instrument in the measurement of outcomes after knee replacement. J Rheumatol 1995;22:1193-6.
11. Johnston RC, Fitzgerald RH, Harris WH, et al. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990;72:161-8.
12. Kantz ME, Harris WJ, Levitsky K, et al. Methods for assessing condition-specific and generic functional status outcomes after total knee replacement. Med Care 1992:30 (Suppl):MS240-52.
13. Katz JN, Larson MG, Phillips CB, et al. Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer health status instruments. Med Care 1992;30:917-25.
14. Liang MH, Cullen KE, Larson MG, et al. Cost effectiveness and total joint arthroplasty in osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1986;29:937-43.
15. Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparison of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care 1990; 28:632-42.
16. Mason MD, Ewald FC. Wright WH, et al. Ten to 14-year review of a non-constrained, cruciate retaining, total knee arthroplasty Orthop Trans 1993;17:1091-2.
17. Malkani AL, Rand JA, Bryan RS, et al. Total knee arthroplasty with a kinematic condylar prosthesis. A ten-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1995;77:423-31.
18. Mulroy WF, Harris WH. Total hip arthroplasty with the use of socalled second generation cementing techniques. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996;77:1845-52.
19. Ranawat CS, Boachie-Adjei O Survivorship analysis and results of total condylar knee arthroplasty: Eight-to 11-year follow up period. Clin Orthop 1988;226:6-13.
20. Rehlman AS. Assessment and accountability: the third revolution in medical care (editorial). New Engl J Med 1988;319:1220-2.
21. Schulte KR, Callahan JJ, Kelley SS, et al. The outcome of the Charnley total hip arthroplasty with cement after a minimum 20-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993;75:961-75.
22. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473-83.