Validation of a Japanese patient-derived outcome scale for assessing total knee arthroplasty: Comparison with Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC)

Journal of Orthopaedic Science

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 288-293

  Hashimoto, Hideki ^a   Hanyu, Tadamasa ^a   Sledge, Clement B ^a   Lingard, Elizabeth A ^a  

^a TEIKYO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

Author keywords

Patient derived outcome; Scale validation; Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC)

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND; CANADA; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; JAPAN; KNEE FUNCTION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PAIN ASSESSMENT; RATING SCALE; RELIABILITY; TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 0038797805     PISSN: 09492658     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10776-002-0629-0     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Bae S, Lee H, Yun HR, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of Korean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) and Lequesne osteoarthritis indices for clinical research. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2001;9:746-50.
2. 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.
3. Chwalow AJ. Cross-cultural validation of existing quality of life scales. Patient Educ Couns 1995;26:313-8.
4. Detora LM, Krupa D, Bolognese J, et al. Rofecoxib shows consistent efficacy in osteoarthritis clinical trials, regardless of specific patient demographic and disease factors. J Rheumatol 2001;28:2494-503.
5. Fairbank JCT, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 2000;25:2940-53.
6. Fortin PR, Clarke AE, Joseph L, et al. Outcomes of total hip and knee replacement. preoperative functional status predicts outcomes at six months after surgery. Arthritis Rheum 1999;42:1722-8.
7. Fukuhara S, Bito S, Green J, et al. Translation, adaptation, and validation of the SF-36 health survey for use in Japan. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:1037-44.
8. Fukuhara S, Ware JE, Kosinski M, et al. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity of the Japanese SF-36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:1045-53.
9. Guillemin F. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of health status measures. Scand J Rheumatol 1995;24:61-3.
10. Hawker G, Melfi C, Paul J, et al. Comparison of a generic (SF-36) and a disease specific (WOMAC) (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) instrument in the measurement of outcomes after knee replacement surgery. J Rheumatol 1995;22:1193-6.
11. Herdman M, Fox-Rushby J, Badia X. A model of equivalence in the cultural adaptation of HRQoL instruments: the universalist approach. Qual Life Res 1998;7:323-35.
12. Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care 1990;28: 632-42.
13. Lingard EA, Hashimoto H, Sledge CB. Development of outcome research for total joint arthroplasty. J Orthop Sci 2000;5:175-7.
14. Lingard EA, Katz JN, Wright RJ, et al. Validity and responsiveness of the Knee Society Clinical Rating System in comparison with the SF-36 and WOMAC. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001;83:1856-64.
15. Lingard EA, Wright EA, Sledge CB, et al. Pitfalls of using patient recall to derive preoperative status in outcome studies of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001;83:1149-56.
16. Mallinson S. Listening to respondents: a qualitative asessment of the Short-Form 36 Health Status Questionnaire. Soc Sci Med 2002;54:11-21.
17. McConnell S, Kolopack P, Davis AM, et al. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC); a review of its utility and measurement properties. Arthritis Care Res 2001;45:453-61.
18. McHorney C, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 1995;4:293-307.
19. Meenan RF, Mason JH, Anderson JJ, et al. AIMS2: the content and properties of a revised and expanded Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales Health Status Questionnaire. Arthritis Rheum 1992;35:1-10.
20. Perneger TV, Leplege A, Etter J. Cross-cultural adaptation of a psychometric instrument: two methods compared. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:1037-46.
21. Roos EM, Klassbo M, Lohmander LS. WOMAC osteoarthritis index: reliability, validity, and responsiveness in patients with arthroscopically assessed osteoarthritis. Scand J Rheumatol 1999; 28:210-5.
22. nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.
23. Stucki G, Sangha O, Stucki S, et al. Comparison of the WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) osteoarthritis index and a self-report format of the self-administered Lequesnealgofunctional index in patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 1998;6:79-86.
24. 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.