A simple visual analog scale for pain is as responsive as the WOMAC, the SF-36, and the EQ-5D in measuring outcomes of revision hip arthroplasty

Acta Orthopaedica

Volumn 85, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 128-132

  Zampelis, Vasilis ^a,c   Ornstein, Ewald ^a   Franzén, Herbert ^b   Atroshi, Isam ^a,c  

^a Hässleholm Hospital   (Sweden)

^b Angelholm Hospital   (Sweden)

^c LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMORBIDITY; EFFECT SIZE; EQ 5D INDEX; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH STATUS; HEART FAILURE; HIP ARTHROPLASTY; HIP OSTEOARTHRITIS; HUMAN; INTERNAL CONSISTENCY; ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MENTAL HEALTH; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RATING SCALE; SHORT FORM 36; SOCIAL INTERACTION; STUDENT T TEST; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS; VERY ELDERLY; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; WESTERN ONTARIO AND MCMASTER UNIVERSITIES OSTEOARTHRITIS INDEX;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ARTHRALGIA; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, HIP; COHORT STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OSTEOARTHRITIS, HIP; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATIENT OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; QUALITY OF LIFE; REOPERATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84896508508     PISSN: 17453674     EISSN: 17453682     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/17453674.2014.887951     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Atroshi I, Ornstein E, Franzén H, Johnsson R, Stefá nsdóttir A, Sundberg M. Quality of life after hip revision with impaction bone grafting on a par with that 4 years after primary cemented arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Scand 2004; 75 (6): 677-83.
2. Bellamy N. The WOMAC Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis Indices: development, validation, globalization and influence on the development of the AUSCAN Hand Osteoarthritis Indices. Clin Exp Rheumatol (Suppl 39) 2005; 23 (5): 148-53.
3. Bellamy N, Wells G, Campbell J. Relationship between severity and clinical importance of symptoms in osteoarthritis. Clin Rheumatol 1991; 10 (2): 138-43.
4. Davis A M, Agnidis Z, Badley E, Kiss A, Waddell J P, Gross A E. Predictors of functional outcome two years following revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2006; 88 (4): 685-91.
5. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Frost S, Gundle R, McLardy-Smith P, Murray D. Evidence for the validity of a patient-based instrument for assessment of outcome after revision hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2001; 83 (8): 1125-9.
6. Devilly G J. ClinTools Software for Windows: Version 4.1. 2007. Available from: www.clintools.com.
7. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997; 35 (11): 1095-108.
8. Lubbeke A, Katz J N, Perneger T V, Hoffmeyer P. Primary and revision hip arthroplasty: 5-year outcomes and influence of age and comorbidity. J Rheumatol 2007; 34 (2): 394-400.
9. Nilsdotter A K, Roos E M, Westerlund J P, Roos H P, Lohmander L S. Comparative responsiveness of measures of pain and function after total hip replacement. Arthritis Rheum 2001; 45 (3): 258-62.
10. Norman G R, Wyrwich K W, Patrick D L. The mathematical relationship among different forms of responsiveness coefficients. Qual Life Res 2007; 16 (5): 815-22.
11. Rolfson O. Patient-reported outcome measures and health-economic aspects of total hip arthroplasty: a study of the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg 2010.
12. Rolfson O, Rothwell A, Sedrakyan A, Chenok K E, Bohm E, Bozic K J, Garellick G. Use of patient-reported outcomes in the context of different levels of data. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) (Suppl 3) 2011; 93: 66-71.
13. Shi H Y, Chang J K, Wong C Y, Wang J W, Tu Y K, Chiu H C, Lee K T. Responsiveness and minimal important differences after revision total hip arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2010; 11: 261.
14. Terwee C B, Bot S D, de Boer M R, van der Windt D A, Knol D L, Dekker J, Bouter L M, de Vet H C. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007, 60 (1): 34-42.
15. Ware J E Jr, Sherbourne C D. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30 (6): 473-83.