Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Introduction:

This study explored the psychometric properties of the modified Harris Hip Score-Greek version (mHHS-Gr) as a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure in osteoarthritic hip patients.

Methods:

Internal consistency, test-retest reliability and reproducibility were evaluated in 90 patients aged >55 years. Construct validity was tested against Greek versions of the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS-Greek) and WOMAC Index (WOMAC-Gr), and the Timed Up and Go (TUG) and 9-stairs-ascend/descend (9S-A/D) tests. Known-groups validity was examined using TUG score (cut-off 13.5 s) as an estimate variable. Responsiveness was examined before and 4 weeks after direct anterior minimal invasive surgery.

Results:

Reliability: Internal consistency was moderate (Cronbach’s a = 0.614, p < 0.001). Test-retest reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.881, 95% CI, 0.824–0.920). Reproducibility: Floor and ceiling effects were both 1.1%; measurement error was 3.54 (p < 0.05); minimal important change was lower than minimal detectable change.

Validity: mHHS-Gr correlated strongly with both LEFS-Greek and WOMAC-Gr (Pearson’s r 0.801 and −0.783, respectively; p < 0.001). The questionnaire’s correlations with TUG and 9S-A/D were also significant but moderate (Spearman’s ρ: −0.547 and −0.575, respectively; p < 0.001). Known-groups validity showed that mHHS-Gr scores were significantly higher in participants with TUG < 13.5 seconds than in those with TUG > 13.5 seconds (p < 0.001). In ROC analysis, the cut-off point of 52.5 yielded sensitivity 81% and specificity 71%.

Responsiveness: Standardised response mean and Guyatt’s responsiveness statistic were greater than 0.8.

Discussion:

mHHS-Gr showed significant moderate to excellent reliability, significant moderate to strong validity properties and excellent responsiveness. Overall, mHHS-Gr could be a reliable and valid PRO measure for assessing patients with osteoarthritis of the hip.

Keywords

Osteoarthritis-hip patient-reported outcome measures physical-performance measures reliability validity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Palazzo

Nguyen

Lefevre-Colau

, et al. Risk factors and burden of osteoarthritis. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 2016; 59: 134–138.

Murphy

Helmick

Schwartz

, et al. One in four people may develop symptomatic hip osteoarthritis in his or her lifetime. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2010; 18: 1372–1379.

Culliford

Maskell

Kiran

, et al. The lifetime risk of total hip and knee arthroplasty: results from the UK general practice research database. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2012; 20: 519–524.

Oliveria

Felson

Reed

, et al. Incidence of symptomatic hand, hip, and knee osteoarthritis among patients in a health maintenance organization. Arthritis Rheum 1995; 38: 1134–1141.

van Saase

van Romunde

Cats

, et al. Epidemiology of osteoarthritis: Zoetermeer survey. Comparison of radiological osteoarthritis in a Dutch population with that in 10 other populations. Ann Rheum Dis 1989; 48: 271–280.

Andrianakos

Kontelis

Karamitsos

, et al. Prevalence of symptomatic knee, hand, and hip osteoarthritis in Greece. The ESORDIG study. J Rheumatol 2006; 33: 2507–2513.

Harris

. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1969; 51: 737–755.

Marchetti

Binazzi

Vaccari

, et al. Long-term results with cementless Fitek (or Fitmore) cups. J Arthroplasty 2005; 20: 730–737.

Nilsdotter

Bremander

. Measures of hip function and symptoms: Harris hip score (HHS), hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS), Oxford hip score (OHS), Lequesne index of severity for osteoarthritis of the hip (LISOH), and American academy of orthopedic surgeons (AAOS) hip and knee questionnaire. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011; 63(Suppl. 11): S200–S207.

10.

Munro

Johnston

. Outcome measures following hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Trauma 2018; 32: 34–37.

11.

Byrd

Jones

. Prospective analysis of hip arthroscopy with 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 2000; 16: 578–587.

12.

Mokkink

Terwee

Patrick

, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res 2010; 19: 539–549.

13.

Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21^st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001.

14.

Kemp

Collins

Roos

, et al. Psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures for hip arthroscopic surgery. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41: 2065–2073.

15.

Guimarães

Alves

Azuaga

, et al. Translation and transcultural adaptation of the modified Harris hip score. Acta Ortopédica Brasileira 2010; 18: 339–342.

16.

Tijssen

van Cingel

van Melick

, et al. Patient-reported outcome questionnaires for hip arthroscopy: a systematic review of the psychometric evidence. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2011; 12: 117.

17.

Ramisetty

Kwon

Mohtadi

. Patient-reported outcome measures for hip preservation surgery-a systematic review of the literature. J Hip Preserv Surg 2015; 2: 15–27.

18.

Juhakoski

Tenhonen

Anttonen

, et al. Factors affecting self-reported pain and physical function in patients with hip osteoarthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008; 89: 1066–1073.

19.

Rockwood

Awalt

Carver

, et al. Feasibility and measurement properties of the functional reach and the timed up and go tests in the Canadian study of health and aging. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2000; 55: M70–M73.

20.

World Medical Association. WMA declaration of Helsinki – ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects, https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/ (2017, accessed 13 October 2017).

21.

von Elm

Altman

Egger

, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 2007; 370: 1453–1457.

22.

Guillemin

Bombardier

Beaton

. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46: 1417–1432.

23.

Guillemin

. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of health status measures. Scand J Rheumatol 1995; 24: 61–63.

24.

Beaton

Bombardier

Guillemin

, et al. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000; 25: 3186–3191.

25.

Kellgren

Lawrence

. Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 1957; 16: 494–502.

26.

Puopolo

Boice

Fidelholtz

, et al. A randomized placebo-controlled trial comparing the efficacy of etoricoxib 30 mg and ibuprofen 2400 mg for the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007; 15: 1348–1356.

27.

Binkley

Stratford

Lott

, et al. The lower extremity functional scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. North American orthopaedic rehabilitation research network. Phys Ther 1999; 79: 371–383.

28.

Stasi

Papathanasiou

Anagnostou

, et al. Lower extremity functional scale (LEFS): cross – cultural adaption into Greek and reliability properties of the instrument. Health Sci J 2012; 6: 750–773.

29.

Stasi

Papathanasiou

Korres

, et al. Validation of the lower extremity functional scale in community-dwelling elderly people (LEFS-Greek); determination of functional status cut-off points using TUG test. Eur Geriatr Med 2013; 4: 237–241.

30.

Bellamy

Buchanan

. A preliminary evaluation of the dimensionality and clinical importance of pain and disability in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. Clin Rheumatol 1986; 5: 231–241.

31.

Papathanasiou

Stasi

Oikonomou

, et al. Clinimetric properties of WOMAC index in Greek knee osteoarthritis patients: comparisons with both self-reported and physical performance measures. Rheumatol Int 2015; 35: 115–123.

32.

Podsiadlo

Richardson

. The timed “Up & Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 1991; 39: 142–148.

33.

Herman

Giladi

Hausdorff

. Properties of the ‘timed up and go’ test: more than meets the eye. Gerontology 2011; 57: 203–210.

34.

Nightingale

Pourkazemi

Hiller

. Systematic review of timed stair tests. J Rehabil Res Dev 2014; 51: 335–350.

35.

Nunnally

. Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978, p. 421.

36.

Cappelleri

Lundy

Hays

. Overview of classical test theory and item response theory for quantitative assessment of items in developing patient-reported outcome measures. Clin Ther 2014; 36: 648–662.

37.

Nunnally

Bernstein

. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.

38.

Terwee

Bot

de Boer

, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60: 34–42.

39.

Weir

. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res 2005; 19: 231–240.

40.

Kamimura

Sakakima

Tsutsumi

, et al. Preoperative predictors of ambulation ability at different time points after total hip arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis. Rehabil Res Pract 2014; 2014: 861268.

41.

Luiz

Almeida

RMVR

. On the measurement of change in medical research. Int J Stat Med Res 2012; 1: 144–147.

42.

Jotanovic

Mihelic

Gulan

, et al. Osteoarthritis of the hip: an overview. Periodicum Biologorum 2015; 117: 95–108.

43.

Roos

Engelhart

Ranstam

, et al. ICRS recommendation document: patient-reported outcome instruments for use in patients with articular cartilage defects. Cartilage 2011; 2: 122–136.

44.

Terwee

Dekker

Wiersinga

, et al. On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res 2003; 12: 349–362.

45.

Lohr

Aaronson

Alonso

, et al. Evaluating quality of life and health status instruments: development of scientiﬁc review criteria. Clin Ther 1996; 18: 979–992.

46.

Hinman

Dobson

Takla

, et al. Which is the most useful patient-reported outcome in femoroacetabular impingement? Test-retest reliability of six questionnaires. Br J Sports Med 2014; 48: 458–463.

47.

Wright

Cook

Baxter

, et al. Relationship between the Western Ontario and McMaster universities osteoarthritis index physical function subscale and physical performance measures in patients with hip osteoarthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010; 91: 1558–1564.

48.

Stratford

Kennedy

. Performance measures were necessary to obtain a complete picture of osteoarthritic patients. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 160–167.

49.

Potter

Freedman

Andersen

, et al. Correlation of short form-36 and disability status with outcomes of arthroscopic acetabular labral debridement. Am J Sports Med 2005; 33: 864–870.

50.

Escobar

Pérez

Herrera-Espiñeira

, et al. Total knee replacement; minimal clinically important differences and responders. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2013; 21: 2006–2012.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.51 MB

0.10 MB

Modified Harris Hip Score as patient-reported outcome measure in osteoarthritic patients: psychometric properties of the Greek version

Abstract

Introduction:

Methods:

Results:

Discussion:

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material