SynthesisPloS one2021
Systematic review and standardised assessment of Chinese cross-cultural adapted hip Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs).
Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chinese cross-culturally adapted patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for knee disorders: a systematic review and assessment using the Evaluating the Measurement of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) instrument.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2022Pooled it
- Construction of a conceptual model and preliminary content development for patient-reported outcomes measurement after total hip arthroplasty: from a Chinese perspective.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments: an overview of reviews.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024Review
- The Chinese version of the Computer Vision Syndrome Questionnaire: translation and cross-cultural adaptation.BMC ophthalmology · 2023Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo perform a systemic literature search to identify Chinese cross culturally adapted and new designed Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) used for hip assessment, then a standardized evaluation of available instruments in order to provide evidence of high-quality PROMs for clinical use and adoption in future hip registries.
methodsA Systematic Review of the following databases: PUBMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, CNKI was performed to identify relevant PROMs. Instruments underwent standardized assessment and scoring using the EMPRO tool by two independent reviewers. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC).
results2188 articles were retrieved, with seven articles fitting the inclusion criteria consisting of six hip PROMs. Five PROMs were cross culturally adapted and one was originally designed in Mandarin Chinese. Total scores (/100) after EMPRO evaluation: Osteoarthritis of Knee and Hip Quality of Life (OAKHQOL): 55; Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS): 52; International Hip Outcome Tool (SC-iHOT-33): 45; Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS): 37; Questionnaire on the Perceptions and Functions of Patients about Total Hip Arthroplasty (QPFPTHA): 36; Oxford Hip Score (OHS): 35. ICC values were 0.73 for the SC-iHOT-33 and ranged between 0.83-0.93 for the other PROMs indicating good to excellent inter-rater agreement.
conclusionAmong the commonly used hip-specific PROMs found in arthroplasty registries, none of the Chinese adapted versions evaluated by EMPRO is currently rated acceptable for clinical use. Only OAKHQOL and HAGOS reached acceptability threshold. Further research on the attributes of cross-cultural adaptation, interpretability and burden assessment would be helpful.
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.