2015
DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-4027-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

What Clinimetric Evidence Exists for Using Hip-specific Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Pediatric Hip Impingement?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
(24 reference statements)
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…An independent, blinded adjudicator (a senior radiologist with more than 20 years of experience) evaluated all MRIs for FAI morphology using the criteria shown in Table 1. The scores for the individual domains for the HOS (ADL and sports subscale) and PedsQL (physical functioning, emotional functioning, social functioning, school functioning, psychosocial health summary) are presented [31][32][33][34][35].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An independent, blinded adjudicator (a senior radiologist with more than 20 years of experience) evaluated all MRIs for FAI morphology using the criteria shown in Table 1. The scores for the individual domains for the HOS (ADL and sports subscale) and PedsQL (physical functioning, emotional functioning, social functioning, school functioning, psychosocial health summary) are presented [31][32][33][34][35].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…That outcome was reported to provide good validity, reliability, and responsiveness for the evaluation of physically active patients with a hip disorder [20]. There are several other outcome measures regarding hip diseases available; however, none of these were validated in the paediatric population [21]. For assessing the outcome of fractures around the knee, we chose the Pedi-IKDC [22,23], which was reported to have better psychometric properties than the KOOS-Child [24].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After duplicate removals, 102 articles were screened from titles and abstracts. Fourteen full texts were selected 13–26. Eight literature reviews were excluded and six were included (see articles in table 1).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Eight literature reviews were excluded and six were included (see articles in table 1). 13 17 20 24–26 The flow diagram (figure 1) was presented according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The quality of the SRs (table 1 and online supplementary appendix 1) according to the AMSTAR 2 was often deemed ‘critically low’ mainly because very few reviews assessed and took into consideration the risk of bias and/or methodological quality of the studies included in the SRs.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%