Exploring the validation of a Japanese version of the International Hip Outcome Tool 12: Reliability, validity, and responsiveness

Watanabe, Nobuyuki; Murakami, Satona; Uchida, Soshi; Tateishi, Seiichiro; Ohara, Hidetsugu; Yamamoto, Yasuhiro; Kojima, Taiki

doi:10.1016/j.jos.2018.12.014

Cited by 16 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These factor-model variants could be explained by cross-cultural reasons [51], or by different age-related QoL concerns and expectations, since the mean age of the studied population varied from study to study [10,13,14,17]. No factor analyses have been carried out for the Portuguese, German and Japanese versions [12,15,16].…”

Section: Factor Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both questionnaires were designed to measure the impact of hip disorders on the QoL of young, active patients. The original English version of iHOT12 was cross-culturally adapted for Portuguese patients [12], while Swedish [13], Dutch [14], German [15], Japanese [16] and Turkish [17] versions of the questionnaire were also proved reliable and valid. Despite the widespread use of iHOT12 in clinical research and practice worldwide, there is a lack of information regarding its applicability in older patients with chronic hip diseases, such as hip OA.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

International Hip Outcome Tool (12-items) as health-related quality-of-life measure in osteoarthritis: validation of Greek version

Stasi

Stamou

Papathanasiou

et al. 2020

J Patient Rep Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT12) is a patient-reported outcome (PRO) designed to evaluate quality of life. We assessed the psychometric properties of the Greek version (iHOT12-Gr) in hip osteoarthritic patients. Methods Data from 124 patients aged > 50 years were used for factor analysis. Reliability evaluation included internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and interpretability. Content validity was examined by calculating the item-level content validity indices (I-CVI) and the scale-level content validity indices (S-CVI), using two methods: S-CVI Average (S-CVI/Ave), and the S-CVI Universal Agreement among experts (S-CVI/UA). Construct validity was tested against Greek versions of the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS-Greek), Modified Harris Hip Score (MHHS-Gr), and the 30 s chair-to-stand, Timed Up & Go (TUG), and 9-stairs-ascend/descend (9S-A/D) tests. Known-groups validity was examined using LEFS-Greek (cut-off = 53 points) as estimate variable. Responsiveness was examined pre and post total hip arthroplasty (4 and 8 weeks). Results Factor analysis revealed a two-factor model. Factor-1 (items 1–9) reflects “Symptoms and functionality”, while Factor-2 (items 10–12) reflects “Hip disorder-related concerns”. Reliability: Internal consistency and test-retest reliability of iHOT12-Gr-total were excellent: Cronbach’s alpha > 0.92 and ICC(95% CI) > 0.976(0.96–0.99)(p < 0.001). Interpretability: There was no floor or ceiling effect; measurement error: 3.72 (Factor-1), 3.64 (Factor-2), and 3.22 (iHOT12-Gr-total); minimal detectable change: 10.3 (Factor-1), 10.1 (Factor-2), and 8.92 (iHOT12-Gr-total). Validity: Content validity: The I-CVI value of the 12 items ranged from 1.00 to 0.83, the S-CVI/Ave was 0.97 and the S-CVI/UA was 0.83. Construct validity: iHOT12-Gr correlated strongly with both LEFS-Greek and MHHS-Gr, and weakly but significantly with 30s chair-to-stand, TUG and 9S-A/D (p < 0.001). Known-groups validity showed that iHOT12-Gr well discriminated subgroups of patients (p < 0.001). ROC analysis cut-off points were 51.9 (Factor-1), 25 (Factor-2) and 45.2 (iHOT12-Gr-total) (p < 0.001). Responsiveness: Four and 8 weeks postoperatively, standardized response means of Factor-1, Factor-2, and iHOT12-Gr-total were > 0.8. Conclusion iHOT12-Gr showed excellent reliability properties. The content validity was excellent and significant weak-to-strong correlations were found regarding construct validity. The known-group validity was also significant, while the responsiveness was excellent. iHOT12-Gr could be a reliable and valid PRO for assessing quality of life in patients with hip osteoarthritis.

show abstract

Section: Factor Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

International Hip Outcome Tool (12-items) as health-related quality-of-life measure in osteoarthritis: validation of Greek version

Stasi

Stamou

Papathanasiou

et al. 2020

J Patient Rep Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The iHOT-12 uses 12 questions from the original 33 and accounts for 96-99% of the total variation of the full score, based on regression analysis, and covers all four domains of the iHOT-33 [4]. It is now included as part of the minimal dataset in both the British and Swedish non-arthroplasty hip registries [12,13] and has been validated in many languages [14][15][16]. Despite this, there are still uncertainties as to what particular postoperative scores actually mean to the patient.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the patient acceptable symptom state following hip arthroscopy using the 12 item international hip outcome tool

Robinson

Maempel

Rankin

et al. 2020

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The International Hip Outcome Tool 12 (iHOT-12) is a shorter version of the iHOT-33 which measures health related quality of life following treatment of hip disorders in young, active patients. The purpose of this study was identify a PASS threshold for a UK population undergoing hip arthroscopy for intra-articular hip pathology. Methods: Data was identified retrospectively from a prospective database of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy under the care of a single surgeon within the date range January 2013 to March 2017. All patients with a diagnosis of femoroacetabular impingment (FAI) undergoing arthroscopic treatment were included. iHOT-12, EuroQol 5D-5 L (EQ-5D-5 L) and a satisfaction questionnaire were available pre and post-operatively. PASS was calculated using an anchor-based approach and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis.Results: 171 patients underwent hip arthroscopy in the study period. Linked longitudinal follow-up data was available for 122 patients (71.3%) at a median of 24.3 months (740 days, interquartile range 576-1047). The PASS threshold for the iHOT-12 was 59.5 (sensitivity 81.1%, specificity 83.9%; area under the curve (AUC) 0.92, 95% CI 0.87-0.97). 64% of patients achieved this score. The median postoperative iHOT-12 score was 72.5 (IQR 44) and the mean change in score was 35 (SD 25, p < 0.001). The EQ-5D Index improved by 0.18 (SD 0.25, p < 0.001) and there was a mean change of 7.67 (SD 24.82) on the EQ-5D VAS (p = 0.001). Conclusions:We report a PASS threshold of the iHOT-12 following hip arthroscopy for FAI as a measurable benchmark for clinicians using this outcome measure.

show abstract

“…This MCID value is comparable with results found in other studies, as the iHOT-12 MCID varied between 12 and 15 points over time frames that ranged from 6 months to 5 years. 19,24,27,34,39 Predictors for attaining MCID at outcome periods from 1 to 5 years include sex, age, BMI, anxiety and/or depression, chondral lesion, preoperative outcome scores, symptom duration, and preoperative intra-articular injections. 25,26,40 The current study found no difference in sex, age, or BMI between those who improved, remained the same, or declined between 1- and 2-year follow-up assessments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship of Average Outcomes Scores and Change in Status Requires Further Interpretation Between 1 and 2 Years Following Hip Arthroscopy

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Previous studies have demonstrated a clinically impactful change in patients between 1 and 2 years after hip arthroscopy. Assessment of differences in patient-specific factors between patients who remain the same and those who change (ie, either improve or decline) could provide valuable outcome information for orthopaedic surgeons treating those patients. Purpose: To identify patients who experienced change in functional status between 1 and 2 years after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and assess differences in patient-specific factors between those who improved, remained the same, or declined in functional status. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Prospectively collected data for patients who underwent hip arthroscopy at 1 of 7 centers were analyzed retrospectively at 1 year and 2 years postoperatively. Patients were categorized as “improved,”“remained the same,” or “declined” between 1- and 2-year follow-up based on the 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) minimal clinically important difference (MCID) value. A 1-way analysis of variance was used to assess differences in iHOT-12 scores, age, body mass index (BMI), alpha angle, and center-edge angle (CEA) between groups. Chi-square analyses were used to assess differences in the proportions of male and female patients in the outcome groups. Results: The study included 753 patients (515 women and 238 men), whose mean ± SD age was 34.7 ± 12 years. Average 1-year (±1 month) and 2-year (±2 months) iHOT-12 scores for all patients were 73.7 and 74.9, respectively. Based on the calculated MCID of ±11.5 points, 162 (21.5%) patients improved, 451 (59.9%) remained the same, and 140 (18.6%) declined in status between 1- and 2-year follow-up. Those who improved between 1 and 2 years had lower 1-year iHOT-12 scores ( P < .0005). We found no difference in age, BMI, alpha angle, CEA, or sex between groups ( P > .05). Conclusion: Between 1- and 2-year follow-up assessments, 21.5% of patients improved and 18.6% declined in self-reported functional status. Those with iHOT-12 scores indicating abnormal function at 1 year improved beyond the MCID at 2 years follow-up. Thus, any decisions about the failure or success of arthroscopic hip procedures should not be made until at least the 2-year follow-up. Failing to thrive at 1-year follow-up may not accurately predict outcomes at year 2 or beyond. This could potentially decrease the perceived need for revision surgery in patients who do not thrive before 2-year follow-up.

show abstract

Exploring the validation of a Japanese version of the International Hip Outcome Tool 12: Reliability, validity, and responsiveness

Cited by 16 publications

References 30 publications

International Hip Outcome Tool (12-items) as health-related quality-of-life measure in osteoarthritis: validation of Greek version

International Hip Outcome Tool (12-items) as health-related quality-of-life measure in osteoarthritis: validation of Greek version

Evaluation of the patient acceptable symptom state following hip arthroscopy using the 12 item international hip outcome tool

Relationship of Average Outcomes Scores and Change in Status Requires Further Interpretation Between 1 and 2 Years Following Hip Arthroscopy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About