Article type
Year
Abstract
Introduction: The number of clinical trials testing variations in total hip arthroplasty (THA) are increasing. Research suggests that these studies use a heterogeneous array of outcome measures and that many of these measures have questionable reliability and validity. This creates difficulty when attempting to perform systematic reviews of these trials and in using the results of clinical trials to inform decision making.
Objectives: Our objectives were to: 1) identify currently available patient reported outcome (PRO) measures used in THA patients; 2) appraise the methodological quality of the studies that evaluate the identified instruments; 3) assess the psychometric evidence of these instruments; and 4) provide a summary of the overall evidence for and against each included questionnaire.
Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SportDiscus, the Cochrane Library, Scopus (1931 to 2014) and reviewed reference lists and contacted experts to identify relevant articles. We included articles on the development or evaluation of a psychometric property of a PRO measure in those undergoing THA and published in English. The study risk of bias was appraised using the 'consensus-based standards for the selection of health status measurement instruments' checklist and psychometric evidence assessed using criteria proposed by Terwee et al. Finally, we combined these assessments to arrive at a synthesis of overall evidence for each PRO measure.
Results: We included 49 unique studies testing properties of 18 different PRO measures. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) Index, the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), and the Harris Hip Score had the most studies assessing them. The OsteoArthritis Knee and Hip Quality Of Life (OAKHQOL), OHS, Patient Specific Index (PASI), and WOMAC had the highest overall evidence. Most included studies were poorly reported and very few psychometric properties were tested in the literature.
Conclusion: We found that very few instruments had sufficient psychometric properties. We recommend that reporting and methodologic guidelines be developed for the assessment of psychometric properties of PRO measures.
Objectives: Our objectives were to: 1) identify currently available patient reported outcome (PRO) measures used in THA patients; 2) appraise the methodological quality of the studies that evaluate the identified instruments; 3) assess the psychometric evidence of these instruments; and 4) provide a summary of the overall evidence for and against each included questionnaire.
Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SportDiscus, the Cochrane Library, Scopus (1931 to 2014) and reviewed reference lists and contacted experts to identify relevant articles. We included articles on the development or evaluation of a psychometric property of a PRO measure in those undergoing THA and published in English. The study risk of bias was appraised using the 'consensus-based standards for the selection of health status measurement instruments' checklist and psychometric evidence assessed using criteria proposed by Terwee et al. Finally, we combined these assessments to arrive at a synthesis of overall evidence for each PRO measure.
Results: We included 49 unique studies testing properties of 18 different PRO measures. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) Index, the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), and the Harris Hip Score had the most studies assessing them. The OsteoArthritis Knee and Hip Quality Of Life (OAKHQOL), OHS, Patient Specific Index (PASI), and WOMAC had the highest overall evidence. Most included studies were poorly reported and very few psychometric properties were tested in the literature.
Conclusion: We found that very few instruments had sufficient psychometric properties. We recommend that reporting and methodologic guidelines be developed for the assessment of psychometric properties of PRO measures.