SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    Bellamy N WOMAC osteoarthritis index: a users guide. London: University of western Ontario; 1995.
  • 2
    Bellamy N, Buchaanan W, Goldsmith C. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes following hip or knee arthroplasty in osteoarthritis. J Orthop Rheum 1988; 1: 95108.
  • 3
    Benroth R, Gawande S. Patient-reported health status in total joint replacement. J Arthrop 1999; 14: 57680.
  • 4
    Buxton J, White M, Osoba D. Patient experiences using a computerized program with a touch-sensitive video monitor for the assessment of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 1998; 7(6): 5139.
  • 5
    Drummond HE, Ghosh S, Ferguson A, Brackenridge D, Tipladt B. Electronic quality of life questionnaires: a comparison of pen-based electronic questionnaires with conventional paper in a gastrointestinal study. Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 216.
  • 6
    Feinstein A. Clinical epidemiology. The architecture of clinical research. Part 2: outline of statistical strategies. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1985.
  • 7
    Guyatt G, Feeney D, Patrick D. Measuring health related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 1993; 118(8): 6229.
  • 8
    Hawker G. Health related quality of life after knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg 1998; 80: 163.
  • 9
    Honaker L. Equivalency of microtest computer and conventional MMPI administration: a critical review. Clin Psychol Rev 1988; 8: 56177.
  • 10
    Honaker L, Harrell T, Buffaloe J. Equivalency of micro test computer MMPI administration for standard and special scales. Comput Hum Behav 1988; 4: 32337.
  • 11
    Kane RL Understanding health care outcomes research. Gaithersburg, Maryland: Aspen Publishing Inc.; 1997. p. 522.
  • 12
    Kreibich D, Vaz M, Bourne R. What is the best way of assessing outcome after total knee replacement? Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996; 331: 2215.
  • 13
    Lofland JH, Schaffer M, Goldfarb NI. Evaluation health-related quality of life: Cost comparison of computerized touch-screen technology and traditional paper systems. Pharmacotherapy 2000; 20(11): 13905.
  • 14
    Martin D, Engelbert R, Angel J, Swiontkowski M. Comparison of the musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire with the short form-36, the western ontario and macmaster universities osteoarthritis index, and the sickness impact profile health status measures. J Bone Joint Surg 1997; 79(9): 132335.
  • 15
    Ritter M, Albohom M, Keating E. Comparative outcomes of total joint arthroplasty. J Arthrop 1995; 10: 73741.
  • 16
    Roizen M, Coalson D, Hayward R, Schittner J, Steinberg E. CAN patient use an automated questionnaire to define their current health status? Medical Care 1992; 30(Suppl 5): ms7484.
  • 17
    Ware J. The medical outcomes study 36-item short-form health survey (SF36) conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30(6): 47383.
  • 18
    Ware J, Snow K, Kosinski M. In: WareJ, editor. Reliability precision and data quality in SF-36 health survey manual and interpretation guide. Nimrod Press: Boston; 1993.