Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2010

Open Access 01-12-2010 | Research article

Responsiveness and minimal important differences after revision total hip arthroplasty

Authors: Hon-Yi Shi, Je-Ken Chang, Chi-Yin Wong, Jun-Wen Wang, Yuan-Kun Tu, Herng-Chia Chiu, King-Teh Lee

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is currently weighted more heavily when evaluating health status, particularly regarding medical treatments and interventions. However, it is rarely used by physicians to compare responsiveness. Additionally, responsiveness estimates derived by the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and the Short Form 36 (SF-36) before and after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) have not been clinically compared. This study compared responsiveness and minimal important differences (MID) between HHS and SF-36.

Methods

All revision THA patients completed the disease-specific HHS and the generic SF-36 before and 6 months after surgery. Scores using these instruments were interpreted by generalized estimating equation (GEE) before and after revision THA. The bootstrap estimation and modified Jacknife test were used to derive 95% confidence intervals for differences in the responsiveness estimates.

Results

Comparisons of effect size (ES), standardized response means (SRM), relative efficiency (RE) (>1) and MID indicated that the responsiveness of HHS was superior to that of SF-36. The ES and SRM for pain and physical functions in the HHS were significantly larger than those of the SF-36 (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The data in this study indicated that clinicians and health researchers should weight disease-specific measures more heavily than generic measures when evaluating treatment outcomes.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Minns Lowe CJ, Barker KL, Dewey ME, Sackley CM: Effectiveness of physiotherapy exercise following hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis: a systematic review of clinical trials. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009, 10: 98-10.1186/1471-2474-10-98.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Dieppe P, Judge A, Williams S, Ikwueke I, Guenther KP, Floeren M, Huber J, Ingvarsson T, Learmonth I, Lohmander LS, Nilsdotter A, Puhl W, Rowley D, Thieler R, Dreinhoefer K, EUROHIP Study Group: Variations in the pre-operative status of patients coming to primary hip replacement for osteoarthritis in European orthopaedic centres. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009, 10: 19-10.1186/1471-2474-10-19.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Nilsdotter AK, Isaksson F: Patient relevant outcome 7 years after total hip replacement for OA - a prospective study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010, 11: 47-10.1186/1471-2474-11-47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Hoeksma HL, Van Den Ende CH, Ronday HK, Heering A, Breedveld FC: Comparison of the responsiveness of the Harris Hip Score with generic measures for hip function in osteoarthritis of the hip. Ann Rheum Dis. 2003, 62: 935-938. 10.1136/ard.62.10.935.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Kosinski M, Keller SD, Hatoum HT, Kong SX, Ware JE: The SF-36 Health Survey as a generic outcome measure in clinical trials of patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: tests of data quality, scaling assumptions and score reliability. Med Care. 1999, 37: 10-22.
6.
Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, Prummel MF, Bossuyt PM: On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res. 2003, 12: 349-362. 10.1023/A:1023499322593.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Escobar A, Quintana JM, Bilbao A, Aróstegui I, Lafuente I, Vidaurreta I: Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after total knee replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2007, 15: 273-280. 10.1016/j.joca.2006.09.001.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J: Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008, 61: 102-109. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Angst F, Verra ML, Lehmann S, Aeschlimann A: Responsiveness of five condition-specific and generic outcome assessment instruments for chronic pain. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008, 8: 26-10.1186/1471-2288-8-26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Fuh JL, Wang SJ, Lu SR, Juang KD, Lee SJ: Psychometric evaluation of a Chinese (Taiwanese) version of the SF-36 health survey amongst middle-aged women from a rural community. Qual Life Res. 2000, 9: 675-683. 10.1023/A:1008993821633.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Hardin JW, Hilbe JM: Generalized Estimating Equations. 2003, Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2
12.
Liang MH, Larson MG, Cullen KE, Schwartz JA: Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. Arthritis Rheum. 1985, 28: 542-547. 10.1002/art.1780280513.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Judge A, Cooper C, Williams S, Dreinhoefer K, Dieppe P: Patient-reported outcomes one year after primary hip replacement in a European Collaborative Cohort. Arthritis Care Res. 2010, 62: 480-488. 10.1002/acr.20038.CrossRef
14.
Efron B, Gong G: A leisurely look at the bootstrap, the jackknife, and cross-validation. Am Statistician. 1983, 37: 36-48. 10.2307/2685844.
15.
Davis AM, Agnidis Z, Badley E, Kiss A, Waddell JP, Gross AE: Predictors of functional outcome two years following revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006, 88: 685-691. 10.2106/JBJS.E.00150.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Taft C, Karlsson J, Sullivan M: Performance of the Swedish SF-36 version 2.0. Qual Life Res. 2004, 13: 251-256. 10.1023/B:QURE.0000015290.76254.a5.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Cohen J: Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. 1997, New York: Academic Press
18.
Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF: Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989, 27: S178-S189. 10.1097/00005650-198903001-00015.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zou GY: Quantifying responsiveness of quality of life measures without an external criterion. Qual Life Res. 2005, 14: 1545-1552. 10.1007/s11136-004-0027-4.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Schmitt JS, Di Fabio RP: Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004, 57: 1008-1018. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.02.007.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Solomon DH, Losina E, Baron JA, Fossel AH, Guadagnoli E, Lingard EA, Miner A, Phillips CB, Katz JN: Contribution of hospital characteristics to the volume-outcome relationship: dislocation and infection following total hip replacement surgery. Arthritis Rheum. 2002, 46: 2436-2444. 10.1002/art.10478.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Quintana JM, Escobar A, Bilbao A, Arostegui I, Lafuente I, Vidaurreta I: Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after hip joint replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2005, 13: 1076-2083. 10.1016/j.joca.2005.06.012.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Steiner W, Stucki G: Responsiveness of the WOMAC osteoarthritis index as compared with the SF-36 in patients with osteoarthritis of the legs undergoing a comprehensive rehabilitation intervention. Ann Rheum Dis. 2001, 60: 834-840.PubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Hoeksma HL, Van Den Ende CH, Ronday HK, Heering A, Breedveld FC: Comparison of the responsiveness of the Harris Hip Score with generic measures for hip function in osteoarthritis of the hip. Ann Rheum Dis. 2003, 62: 935-938. 10.1136/ard.62.10.935.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Weigl M, Ewert T, Kleinschmidt J, Stucki G: Measuring the outcome of health resort programs. J Rheumatol. 2006, 33: 764-770.PubMed
26.
Lübbeke A, Katz JN, Perneger TV, Hoffmeyer P: Primary and revision hip arthroplasty: 5-year outcomes and influence of age and comorbidity. J Rheumatol. 2007, 4: 394-400.
Metadata
Title
Responsiveness and minimal important differences after revision total hip arthroplasty
Authors
Hon-Yi Shi
Je-Ken Chang
Chi-Yin Wong
Jun-Wen Wang
Yuan-Kun Tu
Herng-Chia Chiu
King-Teh Lee
Publication date
01-12-2010
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2010
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-11-261

Other articles of this Issue 1/2010

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2010 Go to the issue

Research article

Rotational alignment of the tibial component in total knee arthroplasty is better at the medial third of tibial tuberosity than at the medial border

Research article

Role of endogenous and exogenous female sex hormones in arthritis and osteoporosis development in B10.Q-ncf1*/* mice with collagen-induced chronic arthritis

Research article

Effects of rituximab in two patients with dysferlin-deficient muscular dystrophy

Research article

Bone metastases from renal cell carcinoma: patient survival after surgical treatment

Research article

Gentamicin release from commercially-available gentamicin-loaded PMMA bone cements in a prosthesis-related interfacial gap model and their antibacterial efficacy

Research article

Association between expression of the Bone morphogenetic proteins 2 and 7 in the repair of circumscribed cartilage lesions with clinical outcome