• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of annrheumdAnnals of the Rheumatic DiseasesCurrent TOCInstructions for authors
Ann Rheum Dis. Oct 2003; 62(10): 935–938.
PMCID: PMC1754316

Comparison of the responsiveness of the Harris Hip Score with generic measures for hip function in osteoarthritis of the hip

Abstract

Objective: To compare responsiveness of the Harris Hip Score with generic measures (that is, the Short Form-36 (SF-36), and a test of walking speed and pain during walking) in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip.

Method: The first 75 cases within the population of a randomised clinical trial on manual therapy and exercise therapy were selected for secondary analysis. Experienced (self reported) recovery by the patients after treatment (five weeks) was used as an external criterion for clinically relevant improvement. Responsiveness was evaluated by comparing responsiveness ratios and receiver operating characteristic curves.

Results: The responsiveness ratio for the Harris Hip Score was high (1.70) compared with walking speed (0.45), pain during walking (0.66), and the subscales of the SF-36—"bodily pain" (0.42) and "physical functioning" (0.36). The area under the curve also was highest for the Harris Hip Score (0.92) compared with walking speed (0.71), pain during walking (0.73), and the SF-36 subscales—bodily pain and physical functioning (both 0.66).

Conclusion: The Harris Hip Score is more responsive than the test of walking speed, pain, and subscales for function of the SF-36 in patients with OA of the hip. The Harris Hip Score seems to be a suitable instrument to evaluate change in hip function in patients with OA of the hip.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (130K).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Morales-Torres J, Reginster JY, Hochberg MC. Rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases and impaired quality of life: a challenge for rheumatologists. J Rheumatol. 1996 Jan;23(1):1–3. [PubMed]
  • Dougados M. Clinical assessment of osteoarthritis in clinical trials. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 1995 Mar;7(2):87–91. [PubMed]
  • Steultjens MP, Dekker J, van Baar ME, Oostendorp RA, Bijlsma JW. Muscle strength, pain and disability in patients with osteoarthritis. Clin Rehabil. 2001 Jun;15(3):331–341. [PubMed]
  • van Baar ME, Assendelft WJ, Dekker J, Oostendorp RA, Bijlsma JW. Effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Arthritis Rheum. 1999 Jul;42(7):1361–1369. [PubMed]
  • van Baar ME, Dekker J, Oostendorp RA, Bijl D, Voorn TB, Lemmens JA, Bijlsma JW. The effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a randomized clinical trial. J Rheumatol. 1998 Dec;25(12):2432–2439. [PubMed]
  • Steultjens MP, Dekker J, van Baar ME, Oostendorp RA, Bijlsma JW. Range of joint motion and disability in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2000 Sep;39(9):955–961. [PubMed]
  • Hochberg MC, Altman RD, Brandt KD, Clark BM, Dieppe PA, Griffin MR, Moskowitz RW, Schnitzer TJ. Guidelines for the medical management of osteoarthritis. Part I. Osteoarthritis of the hip. American College of Rheumatology. Arthritis Rheum. 1995 Nov;38(11):1535–1540. [PubMed]
  • Mazières B, Bannwarth B, Dougados M, Lequesne M. EULAR recommendations for the management of knee osteoarthritis. Report of a task force of the Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutic Trials. Joint Bone Spine. 2001 May;68(3):231–240. [PubMed]
  • Shields RK, Enloe LJ, Evans RE, Smith KB, Steckel SD. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of functional tests in patients with total joint replacement. Phys Ther. 1995 Mar;75(3):169–179. [PubMed]
  • Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969 Jun;51(4):737–755. [PubMed]
  • Kosinski M, Keller SD, Ware JE, Jr, Hatoum HT, Kong SX. The SF-36 Health Survey as a generic outcome measure in clinical trials of patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: relative validity of scales in relation to clinical measures of arthritis severity. Med Care. 1999 May;37(5 Suppl):MS23–MS39. [PubMed]
  • Wright JG, Young NL. A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 Mar;50(3):239–246. [PubMed]
  • Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Steiner W, Stucki G. Responsiveness of the WOMAC osteoarthritis index as compared with the SF-36 in patients with osteoarthritis of the legs undergoing a comprehensive rehabilitation intervention. Ann Rheum Dis. 2001 Sep;60(9):834–840. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Bachmeier CJ, March LM, Cross MJ, Lapsley HM, Tribe KL, Courtenay BG, Brooks PM. A comparison of outcomes in osteoarthritis patients undergoing total hip and knee replacement surgery. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2001 Feb;9(2):137–146. [PubMed]
  • Anderson JJ, Firschein HE, Meenan RF. Sensitivity of a health status measure to short-term clinical changes in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1989 Jul;32(7):844–850. [PubMed]
  • Davies GM, Watson DJ, Bellamy N. Comparison of the responsiveness and relative effect size of the western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and the short-form Medical Outcomes Study Survey in a randomized, clinical trial of osteoarthritis patients. Arthritis Care Res. 1999 Jun;12(3):172–179. [PubMed]
  • Norman GR, Stratford P, Regehr G. Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 Aug;50(8):869–879. [PubMed]
  • Liang MH. Evaluating measurement responsiveness. J Rheumatol. 1995 Jun;22(6):1191–1192. [PubMed]
  • Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(2):171–178. [PubMed]
  • Guyatt GH, Bombardier C, Tugwell PX. Measuring disease-specific quality of life in clinical trials. CMAJ. 1986 Apr 15;134(8):889–895. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Guyatt GH, Deyo RA, Charlson M, Levine MN, Mitchell A. Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement: a clarification. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42(5):403–408. [PubMed]
  • Nilsdotter AK, Roos EM, Westerlund JP, Roos HP, Lohmander LS. Comparative responsiveness of measures of pain and function after total hip replacement. Arthritis Rheum. 2001 Jun;45(3):258–262. [PubMed]
  • Fitzpatrick R, Ziebland S, Jenkinson C, Mowat A, Mowat A. Importance of sensitivity to change as a criterion for selecting health status measures. Qual Health Care. 1992 Jun;1(2):89–93. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Hays RD, Hadorn D. Responsiveness to change: an aspect of validity, not a separate dimension. Qual Life Res. 1992 Feb;1(1):73–75. [PubMed]
  • Steultjens MP, Roorda LD, Dekker J, Bijlsma JW. Responsiveness of observational and self-report methods for assessing disability in mobility in patients with osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2001 Feb;45(1):56–61. [PubMed]
  • van der Windt DA, van der Heijden GJ, de Winter AF, Koes BW, Devillé W, Bouter LM. The responsiveness of the Shoulder Disability Questionnaire. Ann Rheum Dis. 1998 Feb;57(2):82–87. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Altman R, Alarcón G, Appelrouth D, Bloch D, Borenstein D, Brandt K, Brown C, Cooke TD, Daniel W, Feldman D, et al. The American College of Rheumatology criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis of the hip. Arthritis Rheum. 1991 May;34(5):505–514. [PubMed]
  • Ravaud P, Dougados M. Radiographic assessment in osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol. 1997 Apr;24(4):786–791. [PubMed]

Figures and Tables

Figure 1
Receiver operating characteristics of stable patients versus patients with clinically relevant improvement for the Harris Hip Score.
Figure 3
Receiver operating characteristics of stable patients versus patients with clinically relevant improvement for pain during walking and walking speed.
Figure 2
Receiver operating characteristics of stable patients versus patients with clinically relevant improvement for subscales of the SF-36—bodily pain and physical functioning.

Articles from Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases are provided here courtesy of BMJ Group

Formats:

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

Links

  • Cited in Books
    Cited in Books
    PubMed Central articles cited in books
  • MedGen
    MedGen
    Related information in MedGen
  • PubMed
    PubMed
    PubMed citations for these articles

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...