The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Comparison of 3 Methodological Approaches to Defining Major Clinically Important Improvement of 4 Performance Measures in Patients With Hip Osteoarthritis
Abstract
Study Design: Prospective cohort study. Objectives: To establish the major clinically important improvement (MCII) of the timed up-and-go test (TUG), 40-meter self-paced walk test (40-m SPWT), 30-second chair stand (30 CST), and a 20-cm step test in patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA) undergoing physiotherapy treatment. As a secondary aim, a comparison of methods was employed to evaluate the effect of method on the reported MCII. Background: Minimal clinically important difference scores are commonly used by rehabilitation professionals to determine patient response following treatment. A gold standard for calculating MCII has yet to be determined, which has resulted in problems of interpretation due to varied results. Methods: As part of a randomized controlled trial, 65 patients were randomized into a physiotherapy treatment group for hip OA, in which they completed 4 physical performance measures at baseline and 9 weeks. Upon completion of physiotherapy, patients assessed their response to treatment on a 15-point global rating of change scale (GRCS). MCII was estimated using 3 variations of an anchor-based method, based on the patient's opinion. Results: A comparison of 3 methods resulted in the following change scores being best associated with our definition of MCII: a reduction equal to or greater than 0.8, 1.4, and 1.2 seconds for the TUG; an increase equal to or greater than 0.2, 0.3, and 0.2 m/s for the 40-m SPWT; an increase equal to or greater than 2.0, 2.6, and 2.1 repetitions for the 30 CST; an increase equal to or greater than 5.0, 12.8, and 16.4 steps for the 20-cm step test. Conclusion: The variation in methods provided very different results. This illustrates the importance of comparing methodologies and reporting a range of values associated with the MCII, as such values vary, depending upon the methodology chosen. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2011;41(5):319–327, Epub 18 February 2011. doi:10.2519/jospt.2011.3515
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
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
The Timed “Up & Go”: A Test of Basic Functional Mobility for Frail Elderly Persons
Podsiadlo, D., & Richardson, S. (1991) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1991.tb01616.x · Cited by 14,418
A 30-s chair-stand test as a measure of lower body strength in community-residing older adults.
Jones, C. J., Rikli, R. E., & Beam, W. C. (1999) · Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport · doi:10.1080/02701367.1999.10608028 · Cited by 2,921
Responsiveness of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale in Patients with Low Back Pain
Childs, J. D., Piva, S. R., & Fritz, J. M. (2005) · Spine · doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000164099.92112.29 · Cited by 1,481
Global Rating of Change Scales: A Review of Strengths and Weaknesses and Considerations for Design
Kamper, S. J., Maher, C. G., & Mackay, G. (2009) · Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy · doi:10.1179/jmt.2009.17.3.163 · Cited by 1,458
Cited by
Franchignoni, F., Vercelli, S., Giordano, A., Sartorio, F., Bravini, E., & Ferriero, G. (2014) · Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy · doi:10.2519/jospt.2014.4893 · Cited by 924
Dobson, F., Hinman, R. S., Roos, E. M., Abbott, J. H., Stratford, P., Davis, A. M., Buchbinder, R., Snyder-Mackler, L., Henrotin, Y., Thumboo, J., et al. (2013) · Osteoarthritis and Cartilage · doi:10.1016/j.joca.2013.05.002 · Cited by 908
Self-citationBeaudart, C., Rolland, Y., Cruz-Jentoft, A. J., Bauer, J. M., Sieber, C., Cooper, C., Al-Daghri, N., Araujo de Carvalho, I., Bautmans, I., Bernabei, R., et al. (2019) · Calcified Tissue International · doi:10.1007/s00223-019-00545-w · Cited by 528
Roos, E. M., Grønne, D. T., Skou, S. T., Zywiel, M. G., McGlasson, R., Barton, C. J., Kemp, J. L., Crossley, K. M., & Davis, A. M. (2021) · Osteoarthritis and Cartilage · doi:10.1016/j.joca.2020.12.024 · Cited by 320
Liu-Ambrose, T., Davis, J. C., Best, J. R., Dian, L., Madden, K., Cook, W., Hsu, C. L., & Khan, K. M. (2019) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2019.5795 · Cited by 291
Metadata
- Authors
- Wright, A. A., Cook, C. E., Baxter, G. D., Dockerty, J. D., & Abbott, J. H.
- Venue
- Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
- Published
- 2011-05
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 319-327
- ISSN
- 0190-6011 (ISSN-L)
- 1938-1344
- OpenAlex
- W2073492239
- Cited by
- 452
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 8.97
- 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: A Comparison of 3 Methodological Approaches to Defining Major Clinically Important Improvement of 4 Performance Measures in Patients With Hip Osteoarthritis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2519/jospt.2011.3515
- The paper
- Wright, A. A., Cook, C. E., Baxter, G. D., Dockerty, J. D., & Abbott, J. H. (2011). A Comparison of 3 Methodological Approaches to Defining Major Clinically Important Improvement of 4 Performance Measures in Patients With Hip Osteoarthritis. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2011.3515
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.
