The Harris hip score: Do ceiling effects limit its usefulness in orthopedics?

Kim E Wamper, Inger N Sierevelt, Rudolf W Poolman, Mohit Bhandari, Daniël Haverkamp, Kim E Wamper, Inger N Sierevelt, Rudolf W Poolman, Mohit Bhandari, Daniël Haverkamp

Abstract

Background and purpose: The Harris hip score (HHS), a disease-specific health status scale that is frequently used to measure the outcome of total hip arthroplasty, has never been validated properly. A questionnaire is suitable only when all 5 psychometric properties are of sufficient quality. We questioned the usefulness of the HHS by investigating its content validity.

Methods: We performed a systematic review based on a literature search in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for descriptive studies published in 2007. 54 studies (59 patient groups) met our criteria and were included in the data analysis. To determine the content validity, we calculated the ceiling effect (percentage) for each separate study and we pooled data to measure the weighted mean. A subanalysis of indications for THA was performed to differentiate the populations for which the HHS would be suitable and for which it would not. A ceiling effect of 15% or less was considered to be acceptable.

Results: Over half the studies (31/59) revealed unacceptable ceiling effects. Pooled data across the studies included (n = 6,667 patients) suggested ceiling effects of 20% (95%CI: 18-22). Ceiling effects were greater (32%, 95%CI:12-52) in those patients undergoing hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

Interpretation: Although the Harris hip score is widely used in arthroplasty research on outcomes, ceiling effects are common and these severely limit its validity in this field of research.

Figures

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/3216080/bin/ORT-0300-9734-081-703_g001.jpg
Flow diagram of data search

References

    1. de Groot IB, Reijman M, Terwee CB, Bierma-Zeinstra S, Favejee MM, Roos E, Verhaar JA. Validation of the Dutch version of the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2009;17((1)):132.
    1. Gosens T, Hoefnagels NH, de Vet RC, Dhert WJ, van Langelaan EJ, Bulstra SK, Geesink RG. The “Oxford Heup Score”: the translation and validation of a questionnaire into Dutch to evaluate the results of total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2005;76((2)):204–11.
    1. Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1969;51((4)):737–55.
    1. Haverkamp D, Sierevelt IN, Bekerom van den MP, Poolman RW, Dijk van CN, Marti RK. The validity of patient satisfaction as single question in outcome measurement of total hip arthroplasty. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2008;18((2)):145–50.
    1. Kirmit L, Karatosun V, Unver B, Bakirhan S, Sen A, Gocen Z. The reliability of hip scoring systems for total hip arthroplasty candidates: assessment by physical therapists. Clin Rehabil. 2005;19((6)):659–61.
    1. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4((4)):293–307.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62((10)):1006–12.
    1. Ostendorf M, van Stel HF, Buskens E, Schrijvers AJ, Marting LN, Verbout AJ, Dhert WJ. Patient-reported outcome in total hip replacement. A comparison of five instruments of health status. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2004;86((6)):801–8.
    1. Poolman RW, Swiontkowski MF, Fairbank JC, Schemitsch EH, Sprague S, de Vet HC. Outcome instruments: rationale for their use. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) (Suppl 3) 2009;91:41–9.
    1. Ragab AA. Validity of self-assessment outcome questionnaires: patient-physician discrepancy in outcome interpretation. Biomed Sci Instrum. 2003;39:579–84.
    1. Roorda LD, Jones CA, Waltz M, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM, van der Eijken JW, Willems WJ, Heyligers IC, Voaklander DC, Kelly KD, Suarez-Almazor ME. Satisfactory cross cultural equivalence of the Dutch WOMAC in patients with hip osteoarthritis waiting for arthroplasty. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63((1)):36–42.
    1. Shi HY, Mau LW, Chang JK, Wang JW, Chiu HC. Responsiveness of the Harris Hip Score and the SF-36: five years after total hip arthroplasty. Qual Life Res. 2009;18((8)):1053–60.
    1. Soderman P, Malchau H. Is the Harris Hip Score system useful to study the outcome of total hip replacement? Clin Orthop. 2001;((384)):189–97.
    1. Terwee CB, Bot SD, De Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60((1)):34–42.
    1. Walter SD, Yao X. Effect sizes can be calculated for studies reporting ranges for outcome variables in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60((8)):849–52.
    1. Wright JG, Young NL. A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50((3)):239–46.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться