↓ Skip to main content

Validation of the HOOS, JR: A Short-form Hip Replacement Survey

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
200 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
183 Mendeley
Title
Validation of the HOOS, JR: A Short-form Hip Replacement Survey
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11999-016-4718-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen Lyman, Yuo-Yu Lee, Patricia D. Franklin, Wenjun Li, David J. Mayman, Douglas E. Padgett

Abstract

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly in demand for outcomes evaluation by hospitals, administrators, and policymakers. However, assessing total hip arthroplasty (THA) through such instruments is challenging because most existing measures of hip health are lengthy and/or proprietary. The objective of this study was to derive a patient-relevant short-form survey based on the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), focusing specifically on outcomes after THA. We retrospectively evaluated patients with hip osteoarthritis who underwent primary unilateral THA and who had completed preoperative and 2-year postoperative PROMs using our hospital's hip replacement registry. The 2-year followup in this population was 81% (4308 of 5351 patients). Of these, 2371 completed every item on the HOOS before surgery and at 2 years, making them eligible for the formal item reduction analysis. Through semistructured interviews with 30 patients, we identified items in the HOOS deemed qualitatively most important to patients with hip osteoarthritis. The original HOOS has 40 items, the four quality-of-life items were excluded a priori, five were excluded for being redundant, and one was excluded based on patient-relevance surveys. The remaining 30 items were evaluated using Rasch modeling to yield a final six-item HOOS, Joint Replacement (HOOS, JR), representing a single construct of "hip health." We calculated HOOS, JR scores for the Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) cohort and validated this new score for internal consistency, external validity (versus HOOS and WOMAC domains), responsiveness to THA, and floor and ceiling effects. Additional external validation was performed using calculated HOOS, JR scores in collaboration with the Function and Outcomes Research for Comparative Effectiveness in Total Joint Replacement (FORCE-TJR) nationally representative joint replacement registry (n = 910). The resulting six-item PROM (HOOS, JR) retained items only from the pain and activities of daily living domains. It showed high internal consistency (Person Separation Index, 0.86 [HSS]; 0.87 [FORCE]), moderate to excellent external validity against other hip surveys (Spearman's correlation coefficient, 0.60-0.94), very high responsiveness (standardized response means, 2.03 [95% CI, 1.84-2.22] [FORCE]; and 2.38 [95% CI, 2.27-2.49] [HSS]), and favorable floor (0.6%-1.9%) and ceiling (37%-46%) effects. External validity was highest for the HOOS pain (Spearman's correlation coefficient, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.86-0.89] [HSS]; and 0.87 [95% CI, 0.84-0.90] [FORCE]) and HOOS activities of daily living (Spearman's correlation coefficient, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.93-0.95] [HSS]; and 0.94 [95% CI, 0.93-0.96] [FORCE]) domains in the HSS validation cohort and the FORCE-TJR cohort. The HOOS, JR provides a valid, reliable, and responsive measure of hip health for patients undergoing THA. This short-form PROM is patient relevant and efficient. Level III, diagnostic study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 183 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Norway 1 <1%
Unknown 182 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 9%
Student > Bachelor 15 8%
Student > Master 13 7%
Other 12 7%
Other 41 22%
Unknown 58 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 72 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 9%
Unspecified 6 3%
Engineering 6 3%
Arts and Humanities 2 1%
Other 10 5%
Unknown 70 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 August 2022.
All research outputs
#4,673,750
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#994
of 7,311 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,137
of 312,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#26
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,311 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,230 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.