ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2016
Validation of the Mayo Hip Score: construct validity, reliability and responsiveness to change.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The effectiveness of robotic hip and knee arthroplasty on patient-reported outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International orthopaedics · 2019Pooled it
- 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
- The Update on Instruments Used for Evaluation of Comorbidities in Total Hip Arthroplasty.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2021Review
- An update on joint-specific outcome measures in total hip replacement.Reumatologia · 2020Review
- Statistics In Brief: Minimum Clinically Important Difference-Availability of Reliable Estimates.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2017Article
- Clinically important improvement thresholds for Harris Hip Score and its ability to predict revision risk after primary total hip arthroplasty.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies have provided the initial evidence for construct validity and test-retest reliability of the Mayo Hip Score. Instruments used for Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) outcomes assessment should be valid, reliable and responsive to change. Our main objective was to examine the responsiveness to change, association with subsequent revision and the construct validity of the Mayo hip score.
methodsDiscriminant ability was assessed by calculating effect size (ES), standardized response mean (SRM) and Guyatt's responsiveness index (GRI). Minimal clinically important difference (MCII) and moderate improvement thresholds were calculated. We assessed construct validity by examining association of scores with preoperative patient characteristics and correlation with Harris hip score, and assessed association of scores with the risk of subsequent revision.
resultsFive thousand three hundred seven provided baseline data; of those with baseline data, 2,278 and 2,089 (39%) provided 2- and 5-year data, respectively. Large ES, SRM and GRI ranging 2.66-2.78, 2.42-2.61 and 1.67-1.88 were noted for Mayo hip scores with THA, respectively. The MCII and moderate improvement thresholds were 22.4-22.7 and 39.4-40.5 respectively. Hazard ratios of revision surgery were higher with lower final score or less improvement in Mayo hip score at 2-years and borderline significant/non-significant at 5-years, respectively: (1) score ≤55 with hazard ratios of 2.24 (95% CI, 1.45, 3.46; p = 0.0003) and 1.70 (95% CI, 1.00, 2.92; p = 0.05) of implant revision subsequently, compared to 72-80 points; (2) no improvement or worsening score with hazard ratios 3.94 (95% CI, 1.50, 10.30; p = 0.005) and 2.72 (95% CI, 0.85,8.70; p = 0.09), compared to improvement >50-points. Mayo hip score had significant positive correlation with younger age, male gender, lower BMI, lower ASA class and lower Deyo-Charlson index (p ≤ 0.003 for each) and with Harris hip scores (p < 0.001).
conclusionsMayo Hip Score is valid, sensitive to change and associated with future risk of revision surgery in patients with primary THA.
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.