The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE PERCEPTIONS OF PATIENTS ABOUT TOTAL HIP REPLACEMENT
Abstract
We developed a 12-item questionnaire for completion by patients having total hip replacement (THR). A prospective study of 220 patients was undertaken before operation and at follow-up six months later. Each completed the new questionnaire as well as the SF36, and some the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales (AIMS). An orthopaedic surgeon assessed the Charnley hip score. The single score derived from the questionnaire had a high internal consistency. Reproducibility was examined by test-retest reliability and was found to be satisfactory. The validity of the questionnaire was established by obtaining significant correlation in the expected direction with the Charnley scores and relevant scales of the SF36 and the AIMS. Sensitivity to change was assessed by analysing the differences between the preoperative scores and those at the follow-up. The standardised effect size for the new questionnaire compared favourably with that for the SF36 and the AIMS. The new questionnaire provides a measure of outcome for THR which is short, practical, reliable, valid and sensitive to clinically important changes.
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
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02310555 · Cited by 43,931
Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.10.001 · Cited by 5,220
Effect Sizes for Interpreting Changes in Health Status
Kazis, L. E., Anderson, J. J., & Meenan, R. F. (1989) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-198903001-00015 · Cited by 2,401
Cited by
Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials.
Fitzpatrick, Davey, Buxton, & Jones (1998) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta2140 · Cited by 1,715
The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores
Murray, D. W., Fitzpatrick, R., Rogers, K., Pandit, H., Beard, D. J., Carr, A. J., & Dawson, J. (2007) · The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume · doi:10.1302/0301-620x.89b8.19424 · Cited by 1,452
Self-citationEpidemiology and burden of osteoarthritis
Litwic, A., Edwards, M. H., Dennison, E. M., & Cooper, C. (2013) · British Medical Bulletin · doi:10.1093/bmb/lds038 · Cited by 1,315
The routine use of patient reported outcome measures in healthcare settings
Dawson, J., Doll, H., Fitzpatrick, R., Jenkinson, C., & Carr, A. J. (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c186 · Cited by 688
Self-citationScoring Systems for the Functional Assessment of the Shoulder
Kirkley, A., Griffin, S., & Dainty, K. (2003) · Arthroscopy · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2003.10.030 · Cited by 504
Metadata
- Authors
- Dawson, J., Fitzpatrick, R., Carr, A., & Murray, D.
- Venue
- The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume
- Published
- 1996-03
- Volume
- 78-B
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 185-190
- ISSN
- 0301-620X (ISSN-L)
- 2044-5377
- OpenAlex
- W4256311010
- Cited by
- 2,896
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 7.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE PERCEPTIONS OF PATIENTS ABOUT TOTAL HIP REPLACEMENT. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1302/0301-620x.78b2.0780185
- The paper
- Dawson, J., Fitzpatrick, R., Carr, A., & Murray, D. (1996). QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE PERCEPTIONS OF PATIENTS ABOUT TOTAL HIP REPLACEMENT. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.78b2.0780185
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.
