ArticleActa orthopaedica2022
Measurement properties of the HOOS-PS in revision total hip arthroplasty: a validation study on validity, interpretability, and responsiveness in 136 revision hip arthroplasty patients.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome Score-Physical function Short-form (HOOS-PS).BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- The extent of first-time THA revision is not associated with patient-reported outcomes at 1-year follow-up: a study of 426 aseptic revisions.Acta orthopaedica · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeTo determine whether the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical function Short-form (HOOS-PS) is able to appropriately evaluate physical function in revision hip arthroplasty patients, this study assesses psychometric properties of the Dutch HOOS-PS in this patient population. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe assessed psychometric properties of the HOOS-PS following the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria. Content validity, including comprehensibility, comprehensiveness, and relevance of the items, was assessed using cognitive debriefing interviews in hip revision patients (n = 8) and orthopedic surgeons specialized in revision surgery (n = 7). Construct validity, responsiveness, and interpretability (floor/ceiling effects) were assessed in revision hip arthroplasty patients (baseline n = 136, follow-up n = 67). We formulated hypotheses a priori to assess construct validity and responsiveness using the EuroQol 5-Dimensions Health Questionnaire, Numeric Rating scale for pain, and Oxford Hip Score as comparators. All questionnaires were measured at baseline and 1 year postoperatively.
resultsWe found insufficient content validity of the HOOS-PS, as relevance and comprehensibility of the items scored < 85% on the COSMIN criteria for revision hip arthroplasty patients. Construct validity was sufficient as all hypotheses were confirmed (≥ 75% COSMIN criteria). Interpretability was sufficient (< 15% COSMIN criteria) and responsiveness was insufficient (< 75% COSMIN criteria).
interpretationThe Dutch HOOS-PS is not able to sufficiently evaluate physical function in revision hip arthroplasty patients. Minor changes in the items are needed for the HOOS-PS to become sufficiently content valid, because the HOOS-PS lacks relevant items and comprehensiveness.
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.