Reproducibility, validity, and responsiveness of the hip outcome score in patients with end-stage hip osteoarthritis

Arthritis Care and Research

Volumn 64, Issue 11, 2012, Pages 1770-1775

  Naal, Florian D ^a   Impellizzeri, Franco M ^b   Von Eisenhart Rothe, Rüdiger ^a   Mannion, Anne F ^b   Leunig, Michael ^c  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^b SCHULTHESS CLINIC   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HIP ARTHROPLASTY; HIP OSTEOARTHRITIS; HIP OUTCOME SCORE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SHORT FORM 12; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VALIDITY; WESTERN ONTARIO AND MCMASTER UNIVERSITIES OSTEOARTHRITIS INDEX;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; AGED; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, HIP; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OSTEOARTHRITIS, HIP; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84868234951     PISSN: 2151464X     EISSN: 21514658     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acr.21746     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Reginster JY,. The prevalence and burden of arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2005; 41 Suppl: 3-6.
2. Ethgen O, Bruyere O, Richy F, Dardennes C, Reginster JY,. Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty: a qualitative and systematic review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86: 963-74.
3. Ahmad MA, Xypnitos FN, Giannoudis PV,. Measuring hip outcomes: common scales and checklists. Injury 2011; 42: 259-64.
4. 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.
5. Crowninshield RD, Rosenberg AG, Spore SM,. Changing demographics of patients with total joint replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 443: 266-72.
6. Mahomed NN, Liang MH, Cook EF, Daltroy LH, Fortin PR, Fossel AH, et al. The importance of patient expectations in predicting functional outcomes after total joint arthroplasty. J Rheumatol 2002; 29: 1273-9.
7. Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM,. How active are patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468: 1891-904.
8. Martin RL, Kelly BT, Philippon MJ,. Evidence of validity for the Hip Outcome Score. Arthroscopy 2006; 22: 1304-11.
9. Martin RL, Philippon MJ,. Evidence of validity for the Hip Outcome Score in hip arthroscopy. Arthroscopy 2007; 23: 822-6.
10. Martin RL, Philippon MJ,. Evidence of reliability and responsiveness for the Hip Outcome Score. Arthroscopy 2008; 24: 676-82.
11. Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Miozzari HH, Mannion AF, Leunig M,. The German Hip Outcome Score: validation in patients undergoing surgical treatment for femoroacetabular impingement. Arthroscopy 2011; 27: 339-45.
12. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60: 34-42.
13. Walter SD, Eliasziw M, Donner A,. Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med 1998; 17: 101-10.
14. Cohen J,. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988.
15. Streiner DL, Norman GR,. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.
16. Hu LT, Bentler PM,. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equation Model 1999; 6: 1-55.
17. Steiger JH,. Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Pers Indiv Differ 2000; 42: 893-8.
18. Mannion AF, Junge A, Fairbank JC, Dvorak J, Grob D,. Development of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Part 1: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity. Eur Spine J 2006; 15: 55-65.
19. Stratford PW, Spadoni G, Kennedy D, Westaway MD, Alcock GK,. Seven points to consider when investigating a measure's ability to detect change. Physiother Can 2002; 54: 16-24.
20. Naal FD, Sieverding M, Impellizzeri FM, von Knoch F, Mannion AF, Leunig M,. Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted German Oxford Hip Score. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467: 952-7.