The value of short and simple measures to assess outcomes for patients of total hip replacement surgery

Quality and Safety in Health Care

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 146-150

  Fitzpatrick, Ray ^a   Morris, Richard ^b   Hajat, Shakoor ^b   Reeves, Barnaby ^c   Murray, David W ^d   Hannen, David ^c   Rigge, Marianne ^e   Williams, Olwen ^f   Gregg, Paul ^g  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b ROYAL FREE AND UNIVERSITY COLLEGE MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

^c ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS OF ENGLAND   (United Kingdom)

^d NUFFIELD ORTHOPAEDIC CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

^e Natl Guide Aud Patient Inv Unit   (United Kingdom)

^f ADDENBROOKE S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^g NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Assessment; Oxford hip score; Questionnaire; Total hip replacement surgery

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PERCEPTION; QUESTIONNAIRE; RELIABILITY; SCORING SYSTEM; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

AGED; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, HIP; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); QUESTIONNAIRES; STATE MEDICINE;

EID: 0348003045     PISSN: 09638172     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/qhc.9.3.146     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Cowley D. Prpstheses for primary total hip replacement: a critical appraisal of the literature. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1995;11:770-8.
2. Morris R. Evidence-based choice of hip prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1996;78:691-3.
3. Faulkner A, Kennedy L, Baxter K, et al. Effectiveness of hip prostheses in primary total hip replacement: a critical review of evidence and an economic model. Health Technol Assess 1998;2:1-134.
4. Fitzpatrick R, Shortall E, Sculpher M, et al. Primary total hip replacement surgery: a systematic review of outcomes and modelling of cost-effectiveness associated with different prostheses. Health Technol Assess 1998;2:1-64.
5. Bulstrode C, Murray D, Carr A, et al. Designer hips. BMJ 1993;306:732-3.
6. Cleary P, Reilly D, Greenfield S et al. Using patient reports to assess health-related quality of life after total hip replacement. Qual Life Res 1993;2:3-11.
7. Wiklund I, Romanus B, A comparison of quality of life before and after arthroplasty in patients who had arthrosis of the hip joint. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1991;73-A:765-9.
8. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, et al. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1996;78-B:185-90.
9. Donovan J, Frankel S, Eyles J. Assessing the need for health status measures. J Epidemiol Community Health 1993;47: 158-62.
10. O'Boyle C, McGee H, Hickey A, et al. Individual quality of life in patients undergoing hip replacement. Lancet 1992;339:907-13.
11. Wright J, Rudicel S, Feinstein A. Ask patients what they want: evaluation of individual complaints before total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1995;76-A:229-35.
12. McMurray R, Heaton J, Sloper P, et al. Measurement of patient perceptions of pain and disability in relation to total hip replacement: the place of the Oxford hip score in mixed methods. Quality in Health Care 1999;8:228-34.
13. American Society of Anesthiologists. New classification of physical states. Anesthesiology 1982;24:111-4.
14. Streiner D, Norman G. Health measurement scales. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
15. Kazis L, Anderson J, Meenan R. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989;27:S178-89.
16. Lydick E, Epstein R. Interpretation of quality of life changes. Qual Life Res 1993;2:221-6.
17. Liang M, Fossel A, Larson M. Comparison of five health status instruments for orthopaedic evaluation. Med Care 1990;28:632-42.
18. Hopwood P, Stephens R, Machin D. Approaches to the analysis of quality of life data: experiences gained from a Medical Research Council lung cancer working party palliative chemotherapy trial. Qual Life Res 1994;3:339-52.
19. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, et al. Comparison of measures to assess outcomes in total hip replacement surgery. Quality in Health Care 1996;5:81-8.
20. Hill S, Harries U, Popay J. Is the Short Form 36 (SF-36) suitable for routine health outcomes assessment in health care for older people? J Epidemiol Community Health 1996; 50:94-8.
21. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, et al. The problem of 'noise' in monitoring patient-based outcomes: generic, disease-specific and site-specific instruments for total hip replacement. J Health Service Res Pol 1996;1:224-31.
22. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Gundle R, et al. Provision of primary total hip replacement surgery. Lancet 1999;353: 2161.
23. Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton M, et al. Evaluating patientbased outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 1998;2:1-74.
24. Fitzpatrick R, Boulton M. Qualitative methods for assessing health care. Quality in Health Care 1994;3:107-13.