↓ Skip to main content

Systematic review of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures used in patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty

Overview of attention for article published in Patient related outcome measures, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
Systematic review of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures used in patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty
Published in
Patient related outcome measures, July 2016
DOI 10.2147/prom.s97774
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristina Harris, Jill Dawson, Elizabeth Gibbons, Chris Lim, David Beard, Ray Fitzpatrick, Andrew Price

Abstract

To identify patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that have been developed and/or used with patients undergoing hip or knee replacement surgery and to provide a shortlist of the most promising generic and condition-specific instruments. A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify measures used in patients undergoing hip and knee replacement and extract and evaluate information on their methodological quality. Thirty-two shortlisted measures were reviewed for the quality of their measurement properties. On the basis of the review criteria, the measures with most complete evidence to date are the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) (for patients undergoing hip replacement surgery) and the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), with OKS-Activity and Participation Questionnaire (for patients undergoing knee replacement surgery). A large number of these instruments lack essential evidence of their measurement properties (eg, validity, reliability, and responsiveness) in specific populations of patients. Further research is required on almost all of the identified measures. The best-performing condition-specific PROMs were the OKS, OHS, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. The best-performing generic measure was the Short Form 12. Researchers can use the information presented in this review to inform further psychometric studies of the reviewed measures.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 56%
Unknown 4 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 3 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 11%
Unknown 4 44%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 26 July 2016.
All research outputs
#6,181,984
of 8,133,552 outputs
Outputs from Patient related outcome measures
#52
of 71 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,515
of 257,633 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient related outcome measures
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,133,552 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 71 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 257,633 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.