CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 260Total Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The validation of the visual analogue scale for patient satisfaction after total hip arthroplasty

Open access
Brokelman, Roy B. G., Haverkamp, Daniel, van Loon, Corné, Hol, Annemiek, van Kampen, Albert, Veth, Rene·2012·European Orthopaedics and Traumatology
DOI 10.1007/s12570-012-0100-3PMC PMC3389603
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Patient satisfaction becomes more important in our modern health care system. The assessment of satisfaction is difficult because it is a multifactorial item for which no golden standard exists. One of the potential methods of measuring satisfaction is by using the well-known visual analogue scale (VAS). In this study, we validated VAS for satisfaction. PATIENT AND METHODS: In this prospective study, we studied 147 patients (153 hips). The construct validity was measured using the Spearman correlation test that compares the satisfaction VAS with the Harris hip score, pain VAS at rest and during activity, Oxford hip score, Short Form 36 and Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. The reliability was tested using the intra-class coefficient. RESULTS: The Pearson correlation test showed correlations in the range of 0.40-0.80. The satisfaction VAS had a high correlation between the pain VAS and Oxford hip score, which could mean that pain is one of the most important factors in patient satisfaction. The intra-class coefficient was 0.95. CONCLUSIONS: There is a moderate to mark degree of correlation between the satisfaction VAS and the currently available subjective and objective scoring systems. The intra-class coefficient of 0.95 indicates an excellent test-retest reliability. The VAS satisfaction is a simple instrument to quantify the satisfaction of a patient after total hip arthroplasty. In this study, we showed that the satisfaction VAS has a good validity and reliability.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12570-012-0100-3

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 The distribution of the VAS satisfaction
Fig. 1 The distribution of the VAS satisfactionCC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bellamy NW, Buchannan WW, Goldsmith CH, Cambell J, Stitt LW (1988) Validation study of WOMAC. J Rheumatol 15:1833–1840

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 260

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Brokelman, R. B. G., Haverkamp, D., van Loon, C., Hol, A., van Kampen, A., & Veth, R.
Affiliations
Rijnstate Hospital (NL)
ORCID
Brokelman, Roy B. G.
Venue
European Orthopaedics and Traumatology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2012-04-12
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
101-105
ISSN
  • 1867-4569 (ISSN-L)
  • 1867-4577
DOI
10.1007/s12570-012-0100-3
PMC
PMC3389603
OpenAlex
W2162543662
Cited by
260
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
12.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • European Orthopaedics and Traumatology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Keywords
patient satisfaction, total hip arthroplasty, visual analogue scale, construct validity, test-retest reliability, Harris hip score, Oxford Hip Score, Short Form-36, postoperative pain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review