ArticleActa orthopaedica2026
The Oxford Hip and Knee Scores in patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty: cross-cultural validation study based on 110,000 patients.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposePatient-reported outcome measures need to reflect true differences rather than measurement artifacts resulting from translations when scores are compared across countries. We evaluated the measurement invariance of the English, Dutch, Danish, and French Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and Oxford Knee Score (OKS) in patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty.
methodsOHS and OKS responses from patients undergoing primary hip or knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis between 2019 and 2022 were included from national and single-center registries in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Switzerland. We evaluated unidimensionality, monotonicity (Hi > 0.3) and local independence (Yen Q3 > 0.20 above the average indicating independence) in each language version separately. Model fit was considered satisfactory when Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) were ≥ 0.95, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) ≤ 0.06, and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) ≤ 0.08. Measurement invariance across languages was analyzed with multiple group-confirmatory factor analysis on full, random, and matched sample datasets.
resultsAcross the hip and knee cohorts, unidimensionality was acceptable in the English (n = 21,108 and 28,230), Dutch (n = 36,792 and 29,651), Danish (n = 815 and 1,015), and French (n = 590 and 459) versions. RMSEA ranged from 0.072 to 0.092 for OHS, and from 0.057 to 0.061 for OKS and other fit indices were acceptable. The multiple group-confirmatory factor analysis showed acceptable measurement invariance across languages for both scores, with changes in RMSEA < 0.15 and CFI < 0.1 across gradually more constrained models.
conclusionMeasurement invariance of the OHS and OKS was supported across the English, Dutch, Danish, and French versions, with multiple group-confirmatory factor analyses model fit within predefined acceptable limits, supporting cross-comparison of the different language versions of these instruments.
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.