ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2013
Oxford hip scores at 6 months and 5 years are associated with total hip revision within the subsequent 2 years.
Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Virtual arthroplasty follow-up (VARF) in total hip replacement: a safe, effective, and sustainable model for post-operative care.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025Article
- Measuring Short-Term Outcomes Following Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Value-Based Healthcare Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Hip-specific and generic patient-reported outcome measure scores after primary hip replacement are associated with early revision surgery: a national registry study.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2024Article
- Radiographic signs and hip pain 5 years after THA with a cemented stem predict future revision for aseptic loosening: a prospective cohort study.Acta orthopaedica · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Use of PROMs in Paediatric Orthopaedic Registries.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Relationship Between Self-Reported Function, Functional Tests and Biomechanical Parameters in Patients 12 Months After Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Preliminary Cross-Sectional Study.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Functional and Patient-related Outcomes of Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients Younger Than 20 Years.Arthroplasty today · 2023Article
- Article
- Short uncemented femoral component for hip revision: prognosis and risk factors associated with failure.BMC surgery · 2021Article
- Article
- Does failure to meet threshold scores for mHHS and iHOT-12 correlate to secondary operations following hip arthroscopy?Journal of hip preservation surgery · 2020Article
- Using Patient-Reported Outcomes to Predict Revision Arthroplasty Following Femoral Neck Fracture: Enhancing the Value of Clinical Registries through Data Linkage.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Can patient-reported outcomes predict re-operations after total hip replacement?International orthopaedics · 2018Article
- How often is the office visit needed? Predicting total knee arthroplasty revision risk using pain/function scores.BMC health services research · 2016Article
- Article
- Clinical improvement and satisfaction after total joint replacement: a prospective 12-month evaluation on the patients' perspective.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2015Article
- Symposium: 2012 International Hip Society Proceedings.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2013Article
- Total Hip Arthroplasty in a Low-Income Country: Ten-Year Outcomes from the National Joint Registry of the Malawi Orthopaedic Association.JB & JS open accessArticle
- Total Joint Arthroplasty in HIV-Positive Patients in Malawi: Outcomes from the National Arthroplasty Registry of the Malawi Orthopaedic Association.JB & JS open accessArticle
- Perioperative predictability of unsatisfactory functional outcomes 6 months after hip arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedicsArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Oxford hip score (OHS) is commonly reported in research studies as a reflection of pain and function but it is unclear whether it predicts subsequent prosthesis failure. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We determined whether OHS obtained at 6 months and 5 years after surgery predicts risk of revision within the subsequent 2 years.
methodsWe reviewed data from the New Zealand Joint Registry between January 1999 and December 2010. OHS at 6 months was available for 17,831 total hip patients. Patients were separated into four categories based on their OHS: 10,458 (59%) scored 42-48, 4726 (26%) scored 34-41, 1592 (9%) scored 27-33, and 1028 (6%) scored 0-26. Five-year OHSs were available for 3665 patients. Of these patients, 2619 (72%) scored 42-48, 657 (18%) scored 34-41, 225 (6%) scored 27-33, and 164 (4%) scored 0-26.
resultsFor patients with a 6-month OHS, revision risk within 2 years was 0.4% in the 42-48 group, 1.0% in the 34-41 group, 1.7% in the 27-33 group, and 6.2% in the 0-27 group. For patients with 5-year OHS, revision risk within 2 years was 0.3%, 1.1%, 3.6%, and 6.1%, respectively. Increase in revision risk for the 0-27 versus the 42-48 OHS group was 15-fold at 6 months and 18-fold at 5 years.
conclusionsOur data suggest patients with an OHS of 42-48 at 6 months need a 5-year postoperative appointment. Those patients with a 5-year OHS of 42-48 need not be followed up for a further 5 years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.