ArticleInternational orthopaedics2018
Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of a patient-reported hip outcome score.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contemporary cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures: a meta-analysis of forty-two thousand forty-six hips.International orthopaedics · 2019Pooled it
- Factors influencing the survival status of the hip joint in post-collapse femoral head necrosis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Unexpected Repercussions of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Total Hip Arthroplasty with Cemented Hip Prosthesis versus Cementless Implants.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Cross-Culturally Adapted Versions of Patient Reported Outcome Measures for the Lower Extremity.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2023Article
- Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the Indonesian version of the Oxford Hip Score.Bone & joint open · 2021Article
- Article
- Haematology panel biomarkers for humeral, femoral, and tibial diaphyseal fractures.International orthopaedics · 2019Article
- High-volume surgeons and high-volume journals in a multivariate orthopedic environment.International orthopaedics · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to perform psychometric testing for the translated Oxford Hip Score (OHS) for use as a recommended tool to measure treatment outcomes.
methodsThe original English questionnaire was translated and culturally validated using the instrument developer's guidelines and the ISPOR principles of good practice. One hundred patients completed the form together with the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and EQ-5D-5 L. Fifty patients repeated the form after two days. They were suffering from hip osteoarthritis, had had hip replacement or underwent osteosynthesis for a fracture of the trochanteric region.
resultsThe questionnaire had a high degree of reliability with a Cronbach α of 0.917 at the initial completion and 0.917 at the second testing, respectively. The two results were strongly positive and significantly correlated (Pearson's r = 0.947; p < 0.001). The OHS was strongly and significantly correlated with the HHS (Pearson's r = 0.880 initial and r = 0.840 s; p < 0.001) and strongly, positive and significantly correlated with the EQ-5D-5 L VAS (Pearson's r = 0.614 initial and r = 0.704 s; p < 0.001).
conclusionsOur study showed that the translation of the OHS is a reliable, reproducible and valid measure of function in patients who undergo treatment for hip pathology.
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.