SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • 1
    Ethgen O, Bruyere O, Richy F, Dardennes C, Reginster JY. Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty: a qualitative and systematic review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86A: 96374.
  • 2
    Hawker GA, Badley EM, Croxford R, Coyte PC, Glazier RH, Guan J, et al. A population-based nested case-control study of the costs of hip and knee replacement surgery. Med Care 2009; 47: 73241.
  • 3
    Cushnaghan J, Coggon D, Reading I, Croft P, Byng P, Cox K, et al. Long-term outcome following total hip arthroplasty: a controlled longitudinal study. Arthritis Rheum 2007; 57: 137580.
  • 4
    Nilsdotter AK, Petersson IF, Roos EM, Lohmander LS. Predictors of patient relevant outcome after total hip replacement for osteoarthritis: a prospective study. Ann Rheum Dis 2003; 62: 92330.
  • 5
    BQS quality report. 2008. URL: http://www.bqs-qualitaetsreport.de/.
  • 6
    National Joint Registry. National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Fifth annual report. 2008. URL: http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/AbouttheNJR/Publicationsandreports/Annualreports/Archivedannualreports/tabid/87/Default.aspx.
  • 7
    United States Bone and Joint Decade, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The burden of musculoskeletal diseases in the United States. Rosemont (IL): American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 2008.
  • 8
    Dieppe P, Dixon D, Horwood J, Pollard B, Johnston M, and the MOBILE Research Team. MOBILE and the provision of total joint replacement. J Health Serv Res Policy 2008; 13 Suppl: 56.
  • 9
    Allami MK, Fender D, Khaw FM, Sandher DR, Esler C, Harper WM, et al. Outcome of Charnley total hip replacement across a single health region in England: the results at ten years from a regional arthroplasty register. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88: 12938.
  • 10
    Darzi L. High quality care for all: NHS next stage review final report. Norwich (UK): NHS; 2008.
  • 11
    Williams O, Fitzpatrick R, Hajat S, Reeves BC, Stimpson A, Morris RW, et al. Mortality, morbidity, and 1-year outcomes of primary elective total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2002; 17: 16571.
  • 12
    Hawker GA. Who, when, and why total joint replacement surgery? The patient's perspective. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2006; 18: 52630.
  • 13
    Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996; 78: 18590.
  • 14
    Bellamy N. WOMAC: a 20-year experiential review of a patient-centered self-reported health status questionnaire. J Rheumatol 2002; 29: 24736.
  • 15
    Dieppe P, Judge A, Williams S, Ikwueke I, Guenther KP, Floeren M, et al. 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.
  • 16
    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: 107683.
  • 17
    Jacobson NS, Roberts LJ, Berns SB, McGlinchey JB. Methods for defining and determining the clinical significance of treatment effects: description, application, and alternatives. J Consult Clin Psychol 1999; 67: 3007.
  • 18
    Jacobson NS, Truax P. Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol 1991; 59: 129.
  • 19
    Pham T, van der Heijde D, Altman RD, Anderson JJ, Bellamy N, Hochberg M, et al. OMERACT-OARSI initiative: Osteoarthritis Research Society International set of responder criteria for osteoarthritis clinical trials revisited. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2004; 12: 38999.
  • 20
    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: 1029.
  • 21
    Kvien TK, Heiberg T, Hagen KB. Minimal clinically important improvement/difference (MCII/MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS): what do these concepts mean? [review]. Ann Rheum Dis 2007; 66 Suppl 3: iii401.
  • 22
    Tubach F, Ravaud P, Baron G, Falissard B, Logeart I, Bellamy N, et al. Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement. Ann Rheum Dis 2005; 64: 2933.
  • 23
    Tubach F, Ravaud P, Baron G, Falissard B, Logeart I, Bellamy N, et al. Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state. Ann Rheum Dis 2005; 64: 347.
  • 24
    Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988; 15: 183340.
  • 25
    Nilsdotter AK, Roos EM, Westerlund JP, Roos HP, Lohmander LS. Comparative responsiveness of measures of pain and function after total hip replacement. Arthritis Rheum 2001; 45: 25862.
  • 26
    McConnell S, Kolopack P, Davis AM. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC): a review of its utility and measurement properties. Arthritis Rheum 2001; 45: 45361.
  • 27
    MacWilliam CH, Yood MU, Verner JJ, McCarthy BD, Ward RE. Patient-related risk factors that predict poor outcome after total hip replacement. Health Serv Res 1996; 31: 62338.
  • 28
    Busija L, Osborne RH, Nilsdotter A, Buchbinder R, Roos EM. Magnitude and meaningfulness of change in SF-36 scores in four types of orthopedic surgery. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2008; 6: 55.