Skip to main content
PMC home page
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases logoLink to Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
. 2003 Oct;62(10):935–938. doi: 10.1136/ard.62.10.935

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

H Hoeksma 1, C H M Van den Ende 1, H Ronday 1, A Heering 1, F Breedveld 1, J Dekker 1
PMCID: PMC1754316  PMID: 12972470

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 (129.9 KB).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Receiver operating characteristics of stable patients versus patients with clinically relevant improvement for the Harris Hip Score.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Receiver operating characteristics of stable patients versus patients with clinically relevant improvement for pain during walking and walking speed.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Receiver operating characteristics of stable patients versus patients with clinically relevant improvement for subscales of the SF-36—bodily pain and physical functioning.

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Altman R., Alarcón G., Appelrouth D., Bloch D., Borenstein D., Brandt K., Brown C., Cooke T. D., Daniel W., Feldman D. The American College of Rheumatology criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis of the hip. Arthritis Rheum. 1991 May;34(5):505–514. doi: 10.1002/art.1780340502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson J. J., Firschein H. E., Meenan R. F. Sensitivity of a health status measure to short-term clinical changes in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1989 Jul;32(7):844–850. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. 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] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bachmeier C. J., March L. M., Cross M. J., Lapsley H. M., Tribe K. L., Courtenay B. G., Brooks P. M., Arthritis Cost and Outcome Project Group A comparison of outcomes in osteoarthritis patients undergoing total hip and knee replacement surgery. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2001 Feb;9(2):137–146. doi: 10.1053/joca.2000.0369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Davies G. M., Watson D. J., 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. doi: 10.1002/1529-0131(199906)12:3<172::aid-art4>3.0.co;2-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Dougados M. Clinical assessment of osteoarthritis in clinical trials. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 1995 Mar;7(2):87–91. doi: 10.1097/00002281-199503000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. 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. doi: 10.1136/qshc.1.2.89. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Guyatt G. H., Bombardier C., Tugwell P. X. Measuring disease-specific quality of life in clinical trials. CMAJ. 1986 Apr 15;134(8):889–895. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Guyatt G. H., Deyo R. A., Charlson M., Levine M. N., Mitchell A. Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement: a clarification. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42(5):403–408. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(89)90128-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Guyatt G., Walter S., Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(2):171–178. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90069-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Harris W. H. 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] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hays R. D., Hadorn D. Responsiveness to change: an aspect of validity, not a separate dimension. Qual Life Res. 1992 Feb;1(1):73–75. doi: 10.1007/BF00435438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hochberg M. C., Altman R. D., Brandt K. D., Clark B. M., Dieppe P. A., Griffin M. R., Moskowitz R. W., Schnitzer T. J. 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. doi: 10.1002/art.1780381103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Kosinski M., Keller S. D., Ware J. E., Jr, Hatoum H. T., Kong S. X. 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. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199905001-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Liang M. H. Evaluating measurement responsiveness. J Rheumatol. 1995 Jun;22(6):1191–1192. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. 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. doi: 10.1016/s1297-319x(01)00271-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Morales-Torres J., Reginster J. Y., Hochberg M. C. Rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases and impaired quality of life: a challenge for rheumatologists. J Rheumatol. 1996 Jan;23(1):1–3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Nilsdotter A. K., Roos E. M., Westerlund J. P., Roos H. P., Lohmander L. S. Comparative responsiveness of measures of pain and function after total hip replacement. Arthritis Rheum. 2001 Jun;45(3):258–262. doi: 10.1002/1529-0131(200106)45:3<258::AID-ART258>3.0.CO;2-L. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Norman G. R., 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. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00097-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Ravaud P., Dougados M. Radiographic assessment in osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol. 1997 Apr;24(4):786–791. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Shields R. K., Enloe L. J., Evans R. E., Smith K. B., Steckel S. D. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of functional tests in patients with total joint replacement. Phys Ther. 1995 Mar;75(3):169–179. doi: 10.1093/ptj/75.3.169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Steultjens M. P., Dekker J., van Baar M. E., Oostendorp R. A., Bijlsma J. W. Muscle strength, pain and disability in patients with osteoarthritis. Clin Rehabil. 2001 Jun;15(3):331–341. doi: 10.1191/026921501673178408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Steultjens M. P., Dekker J., van Baar M. E., Oostendorp R. A., Bijlsma J. W. Range of joint motion and disability in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2000 Sep;39(9):955–961. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/39.9.955. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Steultjens M. P., Roorda L. D., Dekker J., Bijlsma J. W. Responsiveness of observational and self-report methods for assessing disability in mobility in patients with osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2001 Feb;45(1):56–61. doi: 10.1002/1529-0131(200102)45:1<56::AID-ANR84>3.0.CO;2-Y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Wright J. G., Young N. L. A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 Mar;50(3):239–246. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00373-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. van Baar M. E., Assendelft W. J., Dekker J., Oostendorp R. A., Bijlsma J. W. 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. doi: 10.1002/1529-0131(199907)42:7<1361::AID-ANR9>3.0.CO;2-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. van Baar M. E., Dekker J., Oostendorp R. A., Bijl D., Voorn T. B., Lemmens J. A., Bijlsma J. W. 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] [Google Scholar]
  28. van der Windt D. A., van der Heijden G. J., de Winter A. F., Koes B. W., Devillé W., Bouter L. M. The responsiveness of the Shoulder Disability Questionnaire. Ann Rheum Dis. 1998 Feb;57(2):82–87. doi: 10.1136/ard.57.2.82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES