ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2026
Revisiting minimally important changes for the Oxford Hip and Knee scores.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA number of measures have been proposed to evaluate meaningful within-person change in the Oxford Hip and Oxford Knee scores (OHS and OKS), however there is evidence of lower baseline scores being associated with higher change scores, that is, these instruments potentially demonstrate baseline dependency. The study aim was to identify and quantify the impact of baseline dependency for the OHS and OKS. PATIENTS &
methodsThe data were collated from the National Health Service in England including the OHS, OKS, EQ-5D-3L and a global transition item (GTI). Change scores, including the minimally important change (MIC) were derived and categorised by the GTI and baseline scores for the OHS and OKS. Baseline dependency was evaluated using different baseline categories (OHS/OKS, EQ-5D quartiles and split-item method).
resultsA total of 387,524 records were extracted. Although the overall MIC were in-line with previous research, the results showed these measures varied by pre-operative scores. Baseline dependency was present irrespective of the method employed to categorise change scores.
conclusionsThe MICs for both the OHS and OKS show distinct baseline dependencies. The use of a single MIC for either instrument is unlikely to capture the full range of meaningful change experienced by individual patients and therefore has implications for the interpretation of interventional outcomes with these instruments. A multifaceted approach involving multiple sources of patient-relevant measures is recommended to provide more robust measures for the evaluation of patient outcomes and healthcare services.
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.