What's all that noise? The effect of co-morbidity on health outcome questionnaire results after knee arthroplasty

Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica

Volumn 75, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 119-126

  Dunbar, Michael J ^a,b   Robertsson, Otto ^a   Ryd, Leif ^a  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; COMORBIDITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; KNEE ARTHROPLASTY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; QUESTIONNAIRE; REGISTER; REVIEW; SAMPLE SIZE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, KNEE; COMORBIDITY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OSTEOARTHRITIS, KNEE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REGISTRIES; SWEDEN; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 2342614201     PISSN: 00016470     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00016470412331294355     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Bellamy N, Buchanan W W, Goldsmith C H, Campbell J, Stitt L W. 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 (12): 1833-40.
2. Bland J M, Altman D G. Transformations, means, and confidence intervals. BMJ 1996a; 312 (7038): 1079.
3. Bland J M, Altman D G. The use of transformation when comparing two means. BMJ 1996b; 312 (7039): 1153.
4. Brazier J E, Harper R, Jones N M, O'Cathain A, Thomas K J, Usherwood T, Westlake L. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ 1992; 305 (6846): 160-4.
5. Brinker M R, Lund P J, Barrack R L. Demographic biases of scoring instruments for the results of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1997; 79 (6): 858-65.
6. Charnley J. Low friction arthroplasty of the hip. Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1979.
7. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1996a; 78 (2): 185-90.
8. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A. The problem of "noise" in monitoring patient-based outcomes: generic, disease-specific and site-specific instruments for total hip replacement. J Health Serv Res Policy 1996b; 1 (4): 224-31.
9. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1998; 80 (1): 63-9.
10. Dunbar M J, Robertsson O, Ryd L, Lidgren L. Translation and validation of the Oxford-12 item knee score for use in Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand 2000; 71 (3): 268-74.
11. Dunbar M J, Robertsson O, Ryd L, Lidgren L. Appropriate questionnaires for knee arthroplasty. Results of a survey of 3600 patients from The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Registry. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2001; 83 (3): 339-44.
12. Garellick G, Malchau H, Herberts P. Specific or general health outcome measures in the evaluation of total hip replacement. A comparison between the Harris hip score and the Nottingham Health Profile. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1998; 80 (4): 600-6.
13. Gross M. A critique of the methodologies used in clinical studies of hip-joint arthroplasty published in the English-language orthopaedic literature. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1988; 70 (9): 1364-71.
14. Hawker G, Wright J, Coyte P, Paul J, Dittus R, Croxford R, Katz B, Bombardier C, Heck D, Freund D. Health-related quality of life after knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1998; 80 (2): 163-73.
15. Laupacis A, Bourne R, Rorabeck C, Feeny D, Wong C, Tugwell P, Leslie K, Bullas R. The effect of elective total hip replacement on health-related quality of life. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1993; 75 (11): 1619-26.
16. Roos E M, Klassbo M, Lohmander L S. WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness in patients with arthroscopically assessed osteoarthritis. Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities. Scand J Rheumatol 1999; 28 (4): 210-5.
17. Ryd L, Kärrholm J, Ahlvin P. Knee scoring systems in gonarthrosis. Evaluation of interobserver variability and the envelope of bias. Score Assessment Group. Acta Orthop Scand 1997; 68 (1): 41-5.
18. Sullivan M, Karlsson J, Ware J E, Jr. The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey. I. Evaluation of data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability and construct validity across general populations in Sweden. Soc Sci Med 1995; 41 (10): 1349-58.
19. Ware J E, Snow K K, Kosinski M, Gandek B, SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. Nimrod Press, Boston, Massachusetts 1993.