ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2025
Patient-Reported Outcome Scores Are Comparable When Administered at Home or in Clinic Following Hip Preservation Surgery.
Article in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- MCID normalization: A methodological framework for harmonizing heterogeneous PROMs in hip arthroscopy research.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To determine if the setting of administration (home vs clinic) results in significant differences in patient scores from questionnaires assessing hip and general physical function in a hip preservation patient population. Methods: Adult patients presenting to a hip preservation clinic completed the Modified Harris Hip Score (MHHS), the Physical Function Computed Automated Test (PFCAT), and the sports subscore of Hip Outcome Score (HOS) twice: on an electronic tablet during a clinic appointment and at home via website within 3 to 5 days of the clinic appointment. Patients were randomized into 2 groups to complete the home questionnaires before or after their clinic appointment. Mixed-effects multivariable linear regression analysis, including order of completion as a covariate (i.e., home or clinic first), was used to determine differences in home and clinic scores. Intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate reliability. A Bland-Altman analysis evaluated the agreement between completions. Results: A total of 52 patients were included, 26 in each group. Mean age was 39.3 ± 12.2 years, and 38 of 52 (73%) patients were female. There was no significant difference between home and clinic completions of all 3 questionnaires (all Conclusions: The MHHS, PFCAT, and HOS have high repeatability and are, on average, not affected by settings of administration. When reviewing data on the level of the cohort, no distinction is required for patient-reported outcomes completed at home or clinic within 5 days of a clinical appointment. Level of Evidence: Level II, lesser quality randomized controlled trial.
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.