ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Why EQ-5D and the Oxford Hip and Knee scores do not measure the same things.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. 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.
- MAKO Robotic-Arm-Assisted Versus Conventional Dual-Incision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Propensity-Score-Matched Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Why health services should use generic PROMs and PREMs.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe outcome of treatment is always paramount for patients and healthcare professionals. Patient-reported outcome measures have been developed to measure outcomes.Since 2009, all patients in England having hip and knee replacement surgery have been asked to complete the generic EuroQol EQ-5D-3L and EQ visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) and the condition-specific Oxford Hip Score or Oxford Knee Score for hips and knees, respectively.
methodsEQ-5D-3L has five dimensions with three options each. Each combination has been scaled relative to the best conceivable health state (value 1.0) and the state of dead (value 0) to produce a relative severity score (EQ-Index) with a range from -0.594 to 1.0. This can be used to calculate quality-adjusted life-years. The EQ-VAS is a visual analogue scale from 0 (dead) to 100 (best conceivable health state).The Oxford Hip and Knee scores are similar to each other. They have 12 questions with five options each, scored 0-4. These scores are added, giving a scale with range 0 (no problems) to 48 (extreme problems on all questions).Using over 40 000 records for patients undergoing hip and knee replacements from the National Health Service patient-reported outcome measure database, we compare EQ-5D-3L with the Oxford Hip and Knee scores. To aid comparison, each score was transformed arithmetically to a common 0 (floor) to 100 (ceiling) scale.
resultsEQ-Index, EQ-VAS and the Oxford scores give very different results in terms of change, effect size and correlation. DISCUSSION: More research is needed, but some speculative ideas are put forward, which could explain these findings.
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.