Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,063

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS) – validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement

Open access
Nilsdotter, Anna K, Lohmander, L Stefan, Klässbo, Maria, Roos, Ewa M·2003·BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to evaluate if physical functions usually associated with a younger population were of importance for an older population, and to construct an outcome measure for hip osteoarthritis with improved responsiveness compared to the Western Ontario McMaster osteoarthritis score (WOMAC LK 3.0). METHODS: A 40 item questionnaire (hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score, HOOS) was constructed to assess patient-relevant outcomes in five separate subscales (pain, symptoms, activity of daily living, sport and recreation function and hip related quality of life). The HOOS contains all WOMAC LK 3.0 questions in unchanged form. The HOOS was distributed to 90 patients with primary hip osteoarthritis (mean age 71.5, range 49-85, 41 females) assigned for total hip replacement for osteoarthritis preoperatively and at six months follow-up. RESULTS: The HOOS met set criteria of validity and responsiveness. It was more responsive than WOMAC regarding the subscales pain (SRM 2.11 vs. 1.83) and other symptoms (SRM 1.83 vs. 1.28). The responsiveness (SRM) for the two added subscales sport and recreation and quality of life were 1.29 and 1.65, respectively. Patients 66 years of age (range 67-85) (Pain SRM 2.60 vs. 1.97, other symptoms SRM 3.0 vs. 1.60, activity of daily living SRM 2.51 vs. 1.52, sport and recreation function SRM 1.53 vs. 1.21 and hip related quality of life SRM 1.95 vs. 1.57). CONCLUSION: The HOOS 2.0 appears to be useful for the evaluation of patient-relevant outcome after THR and is more responsive than the WOMAC LK 3.0. The added subscales sport and recreation function and hip related quality of life were highly responsive for this group of patients, with the responsiveness being highest for those younger than 66.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2474-4-10

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Cited by

See all 1,063

Metadata

Authors
Nilsdotter, A. K., Lohmander, L. S., Klässbo, M., & Roos, E. M.
Venue
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Published
2003-05-30
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
10-10
ISSN
1471-2474 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2147673462
Cited by
1,063
References
3
FWCI
4.39
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: Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS) – validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2474-4-10
The paper
Nilsdotter, A. K., Lohmander, L. S., Klässbo, M., & Roos, E. M. (2003). Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS) – validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-4-10

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.