SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • 1
    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.
  • 2
    Bellamy N, Kean WF, Buchanan WW, Gerecz-Simon E, Campbell J. Double blind randomized controlled trial of sodium meclofenamate (Meclomen) and diclofenac sodium (Voltaren): post validation reapplication of the WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index. J Rheumatol 1992; 19: 1539.
  • 3
    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.
  • 4
    Whitehouse SL, Lingard EA, Katz JN, Learmonth ID. Development and testing of a reduced WOMAC function scale. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003; 85: 70611.
  • 5
    Tubach F, Baron G, Falissard B, Logeart I, Dougados M, Bellamy N, et al. Using patients' and rheumatologists' opinions to specify a short form of the WOMAC function subscale. Ann Rheum Dis 2005; 64: 759.
  • 6
    Altman R, Alarcon G, Appelrouth D, Bloch D, Borenstein D, Brandt K, et al. The American College of Rheumatology criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis of the hip. Arthritis Rheum 1991; 34: 50514.
  • 7
    Altman R, Asch E, Bloch D, Bole G, Borenstein D, Brandt K, et al. Development of criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis: classification of osteoarthritis of the knee. Arthritis Rheum 1986; 29: 103949.
  • 8
    Choquette D, Bellamy N, Raynauld JP. A French-Canadian version of the WOMAC osteoarthritis index [abstract]. Arthritis Rheum 1994; 37: S226.
  • 9
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 30710.
  • 10
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Cronbach's alpha. BMJ 1997; 314: 572.
  • 11
    Nunally JC. Pshychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
  • 12
    Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations [review]. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 45968.
  • 13
    Fortin PR, Stucki G, Katz JN. Measuring relevant change: an emerging challenge in rheumatologic clinical trials. Arthritis Rheum 1995; 38: 102730.
  • 14
    Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979; 86: 4208.
  • 15
    Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford Medical Publications; 1995.
  • 16
    Marx RG, Menezes A, Horovitz L, Jones EC, Warren RF. A comparison of two time intervals for test-retest reliability of health status instruments. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56: 7305.
  • 17
    Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. ICH topic E 9: statistical principles for clinical trials (CPMP/ICH/363/96). URL: http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ich/036396en.pdf.
  • 18
    Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. Points to consider on missing data (CPMP/EWP/1776/99). URL: http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ewp/177699EN.pdf.
  • 19
    Haavardsholm EA, Kvien TK, Uhlig T, Smedstad LM, Guillemin F. A comparison of agreement and sensitivity to change between AIMS2 and a short form of AIMS2 (AIMS2-SF) in more than 1,000 rheumatoid arthritis patients. J Rheumatol 2000; 27: 28106.