The DOI matches its Crossref record; 86 of the 86 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries: Report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty RegistriesPart II. Recommendations for selection, administration, and analysis
Open accessAbstract
- The International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (ISAR) Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Working Group have evaluated and recommended best practices in the selection, administration, and interpretation of PROMs for hip and knee arthroplasty registries. The 2 generic PROMs in common use are the Short Form health surveys (SF-36 or SF-12) and EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D). The Working Group recommends that registries should choose specific PROMs that have been appropriately developed with good measurement properties for arthroplasty patients. The Working Group recommend the use of a 1-item pain question ("During the past 4 weeks, how would you describe the pain you usually have in your [right/left] [hip/knee]?"; response: none, very mild, mild, moderate, or severe) and a single-item satisfaction outcome ("How satisfied are you with your [right/left] [hip/knee] replacement?"; response: very unsatisfied, dissatisfied, neutral, satisfied, or very satisfied). Survey logistics include patient instructions, paper- and electronic-based data collection, reminders for follow-up, centralized as opposed to hospital-based follow-up, sample size, patient- or joint-specific evaluation, collection intervals, frequency of response, missing values, and factors in establishing a PROMs registry program. The Working Group recommends including age, sex, diagnosis at joint, general health status preoperatively, and joint pain and function score in case-mix adjustment models. Interpretation and statistical analysis should consider the absolute level of pain, function, and general health status as well as improvement, missing data, approaches to analysis and case-mix adjustment, minimal clinically important difference, and minimal detectable change. The Working Group recommends data collection immediately before and 1 year after surgery, a threshold of 60% for acceptable frequency of response, documentation of non-responders, and documentation of incomplete or missing data.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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
(1992) · PubMed · Cited by 33,716
The MOS 36-ltem Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual Framework and Item Selection
Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002 · Cited by 30,033
WARE, J. E., KOSINSKI, M., & KELLER, S. D. (1996) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003 · Cited by 17,392
Statistical Analysis With Missing Data
Lahiff, M., Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1989) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2289883 · Cited by 17,265
EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life
(1990) · Health Policy · doi:10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9 · Cited by 15,736
Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L)
Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., Bonsel, G., & Badia, X. (2011) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x · Cited by 9,795 · cited 1×
“The EQ-5D-5L is an extended version of the EQ-5D that has 5 response options for each dimension (Herdman et al. 2011).”
Statistical Analysis with Missing Data
Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2002) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9781119013563 · Cited by 8,473
Missing data analysis: making it work in the real world
Graham, J. W. (2009) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530 · Cited by 6,163
Hawker, G. A., Mian, S., Kendzerska, T., & French, M. (2011) · Arthritis Care & Research · doi:10.1002/acr.20543 · Cited by 4,924
Roos, E. M., Roos, H. P., Lohmander, L. S., Ekdahl, C., & Beynnon, B. D. (1998) · Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy · doi:10.2519/jospt.1998.28.2.88 · Cited by 3,903
Cited by
Benefits and Disadvantages of Electronic Patient-reported Outcome Measures: Systematic Review
Meirte, J., Hellemans, N., Anthonissen, M., Denteneer, L., Maertens, K., Moortgat, P., & Van Daele, U. (2020) · JMIR Perioperative Medicine · doi:10.2196/15588 · Cited by 308
(2022) · OECD Health Working Papers · doi:10.1787/6da7f06b-en · Cited by 258
Metadata
- Authors
- Rolfson, O., Bohm, E., Franklin, P., Lyman, S., Denissen, G., Dawson, J., Dunn, J., Eresian Chenok, K., Dunbar, M., Overgaard, S., Garellick, G., Lübbeke, A., & Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries
- Venue
- Acta Orthopaedica
- Published
- 2016-05-26
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- sup1
- Pages
- 9-23
- ISSN
- 1745-3674 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-3682
- OpenAlex
- W2404339163
- Cited by
- 323
- References
- 86
- FWCI
- 27.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries: Report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty RegistriesPart II. Recommendations for selection, administration, and analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/17453674.2016.1181816
- The paper
- Rolfson, O., Bohm, E., Franklin, P., Lyman, S., Denissen, G., Dawson, J., Dunn, J., Eresian Chenok, K., Dunbar, M., Overgaard, S., Garellick, G., Lübbeke, A., & Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries. (2016). Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries: Report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty RegistriesPart II. Recommendations for selection, administration, and analysis. Acta Orthopaedica. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2016.1181816
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.