Griffin DR, Dickenson EJ, Wall PDH, et al. Hip arthroscopy versus best conservative care for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (UK FASHIoN): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10136):2225–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31202-9 [published Online First: 2018/06/13].
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Palmer AJR, Ayyar Gupta V, Fernquest S, et al. Arthroscopic hip surgery compared with physiotherapy and activity modification for the treatment of symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement: multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2019;364:l185. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l185 [published Online First: 2019/02/09].
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Mohtadi NG, Griffin DR, Pedersen ME, et al. The Development and validation of a self-administered quality-of-life outcome measure for young, active patients with symptomatic hip disease: the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33). Arthroscopy. 2012;28(5):595–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2012.03.013 quiz 06–10 e1. [published Online First: 2012/05/01].
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Griffin DR, Parsons N, Mohtadi NG, et al. A short version of the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) for use in routine clinical practice. Arthroscopy. 2012;28(5):611–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2012.02.027 quiz 16–8. [published Online First: 2012/05/01].
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Martin RL, Kelly BT, Philippon MJ. Evidence of validity for the hip outcome score. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(12):1304–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2006.07.027 [published Online First: 2006/12/13].
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Christensen CP, Althausen PL, Mittleman MA, et al. The nonarthritic hip score: reliable and validated. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;406:75–83. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000043047.84315.4b [published Online First: 2003/02/13].
Article
Google Scholar
Thorborg K, Holmich P, Christensen R, et al. The Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS): development and validation according to the COSMIN checklist. Br J Sports Med. 2011;45(6):478–91. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2010.080937 [published Online First: 2011/04/12].
Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Garbuz DS, Xu M, Sayre EC. Patients’ outcome after total hip arthroplasty: a comparison between the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities index and the Oxford 12-item hip score. J Arthroplast. 2006;21(7):998–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2006.01.014 [published Online First: 2006/10/10].
Article
Google Scholar
Marx RG, Jones EC, Atwan NC, et al. Measuring improvement following total hip and knee arthroplasty using patient-based measures of outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(9):1999–2005. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.d.02286 [published Online First: 2005/09/06].
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Kemp JL, Collins NJ, Roos EM, et al. Psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures for hip arthroscopic surgery. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(9):2065–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546513494173 [published Online First: 2013/07/10].
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Thorborg K, Tijssen M, Habets B, et al. Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) questionnaires for young to middle-aged adults with hip and groin disability: a systematic review of the clinimetric evidence. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(12):812. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2014-094224 [published Online First: 2015/01/15].
Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Wilson MN, D. The non-arthroplasty hip registry: 2018 annual report; 2018.
Google Scholar
Sansone M, Ahlden M, Jonasson P, et al. A Swedish hip arthroscopy registry: demographics and development. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22(4):774–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-2840-9 [published Online First: 2014/01/28].
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Watanabe N, Murakami S, Uchida S, et al. Exploring the validation of a Japanese version of the International Hip Outcome Tool 12: Reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Orthop Sci. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jos.2018.12.014 [published Online First: 2019/01/15].
Article
Google Scholar
Baumann F, Popp D, Muller K, et al. Validation of a German version of the International Hip Outcome Tool 12 (iHOT12) according to the COSMIN checklist. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0407-9 [published Online First: 2016/01/10].
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Stevens M, van den Akker-Scheek I, ten Have B, et al. Validity and Reliability of the Dutch Version of the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12NL) in Patients With Disorders of the Hip. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2015;45(12):1026–34. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2015.6178 A1–2. [published Online First: 2015/11/12].
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Kvien TK, Heiberg T, Hagen KB. Minimal clinically important improvement/difference (MCII/MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS): what do these concepts mean? Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66(Suppl 3):iii40–1. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2007.079798 [published Online First: 2007/11/21].
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Keurentjes JC, Van Tol FR, Fiocco M, et al. Patient acceptable symptom states after totalhip or knee replacement at mid-term follow-up: Thresholds of the Oxford hip and knee scores. Bone Joint Res. 2014;3(1):7–13. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.31.2000141 [published Online First: 2014/01/15].
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, et al. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 1998;80(1):63–9 [published Online First: 1998/02/14].
Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, et al. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 1996;78(2):185–90 [published Online First: 1996/03/01].
Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Nwachukwu BU, Chang B, Beck EC, et al. How should we define clinically significant outcome improvement on the iHOT-12? HSS J. 2018;15(2):103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-018-9646-0.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Kivlan BR, Martin RL, Christoforetti JJ, et al. The Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State of the 12-Item International Hip Outcome Tool at 1-Year Follow-Up of Hip-Preservation Surgery. Arthroscopy. 2019;35(5):1457–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2018.11.072 [published Online First: 2019/04/20].
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Tubach F, Ravaud P, Beaton D, et al. Minimal clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptom state for subjective outcome measures in rheumatic disorders. J Rheumatol. 2007;34(5):1188–93 [published Online First: 2007/05/05].
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
England. N. The friends and family test. London, UK: NHS England 2014 [Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/fft/.
Pepe M. The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction: Oxford statistical science series; 2006.
Google Scholar
Gum JL, Glassman SD, Carreon LY. Clinically important deterioration in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery: a choice of evaluation methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, and pain scales: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19(5):564–8. https://doi.org/10.3171/2013.8.SPINE12804 [published Online First: 2013/09/10].
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Parker SL, Godil SS, Shau DN, et al. Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;18(2):154–60. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.10.spine12312 [published Online First: 2012/11/28].
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
de Vet HC, Ostelo RW, Terwee CB, et al. Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehab. 2007;16(1):131–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-006-9109-9 [published Online First: 2006/10/13].
Article
Google Scholar
Clement ND, MacDonald D, Simpson AHRW. The minimal clinically important difference in the Oxford knee score and short form 12 score after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22(8):1933–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2776-5.
Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, et al. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012 [published Online First: 2008/01/08].
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Maempel JF, Ting JZ, Gaston P. Assessing the Outcome of Hip Arthroscopy for Labral Tears in Femoroacetabular Impingement Using the Minimum Dataset of the British Non-arthroplasty Hip Register: A Single-Surgeon Experience. Arthroscopy. 2018;34(7):2131–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2018.02.038 [published Online First: 2018/05/08].
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Judge A, Arden NK, Kiran A, et al. Interpretation of patient-reported outcomes for hip and knee replacement surgery: identification of thresholds associated with satisfaction with surgery. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2012;94(3):412–8. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.94b3.27425 [published Online First: 2012/03/01].
Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Chahal J, Van Thiel GS, Mather RC 3rd, et al. The Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State for the Modified Harris Hip Score and Hip Outcome Score Among Patients Undergoing Surgical Treatment for Femoroacetabular Impingement. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(8):1844–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546515587739 [published Online First: 2015/06/17].
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar