Responsiveness The ability of a an instrument to detect change over time in the construct to be measured.[1] Smallest Detectable Change The Smallest Detectable Change (SDC), also referred to as the Minimal Detectable Change (MDC) or Smallest Real Change (SRC), defines which changes in a measurement that fall outside the measurement error.[9] 6
THESIS AT A GLANCE Study Question Methods Results Conclusion I II III IV Do patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires with adequate measurement qualities for physically active patients with hip and/or groin disability exist? Can a valid, reliable and responsive PRO questionnaire for young to middle-aged physically active patients with hip and/groin pain be developed? Can a reliable clinical measure of hip muscle strength be developed using a hand-held dynamometer? Is isometric hip ADD strength larger in the dominant compared to the non-dominant limb, in soccer players? A systematic review of the reliability, validity and responsiveness of available PRO questionnaires assessing patients with hip and/or groin disability A new PRO questionnaire was developed including 101 patients with hip and/or groin pain. In a prospective study, validity, reliability and responsiveness of the new questionnaire was assessed. The absolute test–retest measurement variation concerning strength assessments of hip ABD, ADD, ER, IR, FLEX and EXT, was investigated in 9 healthy subjects, using a Hand-held dynamometer Maximal unilateral isometric hip ADD and ABD strength on the dominant and non- dominant side were measured in 100 elite soccer players, with a hand-held dynamometer, using the newly developed and reliable test procedure 7 41 studies, involving 12.779 patients, were included as our final data for reviewing. A total of 13 PRO questionnaires were identified in the included studies. Twelve PRO questionnaires considered the hip region and one questionnaire considered the groin region. The new PRO questionnaire Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS) consists of 6 separate subscales assessing pain, symptoms, function in daily living, function in sport and recreation, participation in physical activities and hip and/or groin-related quality of life. Test-retest reliability was substantial, and a priori set hypotheses concerning construct validity and responsiveness was confirmed The reliability of individual hip strength measurements was between 2-13% (SEM%) in the individual hip strength measurements. Standardised strength assessment procedures of hip ABD, ER, IR and FLEX, with test–retest measurement variation below 5%, hip ADD below 6% and hip EXT below 8%, can be performed In elite soccer players the dominant side was stronger than the non-dominant side for both isometric hip ADD and ABD strength, corresponding to a 3% and 4% difference, respectively. The isometric hip ADD/ABD ratio was not different between the dominant and non- dominant limb. PRO questionnaires for young to middle aged physically active patients with hip and/or groin disability are lacking. A new PRO questionnaire should be developed for young to middle-aged physically active patients with hip and/or groin disability. HAGOS has adequate measurement qualities for the assessment of symptoms, activity limitations, and participation-restrictions in physically active patients with longstanding hip and/or groin pain. HAGOS is recommended for use in interventions where the patient’s perspective and health-related quality of life are of primary interest. The hand-held dynamometer is easy to administer and produces a small measurement variation, making it possible to determine even small changes in hip strength. There is a marginal, but clinically irrelevant, isometric hip ADD and ABD strength difference between the dominant and the non-dominant limb in elite soccer players. Contralateral isometric hip ADD strength can therefore be used as a simple clinical reference-point of full recovery of hip ADD muscle strength.
- Page 1 and 2: F A C U L T Y O F H E A L T H S C I
- Page 3 and 4: I shall be telling this with a sigh
- Page 5 and 6: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First of all I wou
- Page 7 and 8: LIST OF PUBLICATIONS 2 ABBREVIATION
- Page 9 and 10: ABBREVIATIONS ABD Abduction ADD Add
- Page 11: Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) A PR
- Page 15 and 16: playing organised football, and tha
- Page 17: evaluated in these studies (Table 1
- Page 20 and 21: Muscle strength testing Muscle stre
- Page 22 and 23: lower arms between the feet of the
- Page 24 and 25: Eccentric strength testing has show
- Page 26 and 27: from patients about a health condit
- Page 28 and 29: AIMS AND HYPOTHESES The overall aim
- Page 30 and 31: Study selection Two reviewers (KT a
- Page 32 and 33: Characteristics of studies and inst
- Page 34 and 35: the reviewers had overlooked specif
- Page 36 and 37: Figure 10. Flowchart of the study p
- Page 38 and 39: Figure 11. Clinical study profile I
- Page 40 and 41: term “hip and/or groin”, we bel
- Page 42 and 43: test-retest ICC should be � 0.70
- Page 44 and 45: Floor and ceiling effects are prese
- Page 46 and 47: Table 7. Baseline characteristics 4
- Page 48 and 49: item, and/or a test-retest reliabil
- Page 50 and 51: Testing the final version of HAGOS
- Page 52 and 53: Responsiveness As hypothesized, cha
- Page 54 and 55: STUDY III Clinical assessment of hi
- Page 56 and 57: etest. Relative reliability is the
- Page 58 and 59: external rotation-sitting position
- Page 60 and 61: andomised before the testing sessio
- Page 62 and 63:
Hip torque values are shown in Figu
- Page 64 and 65:
DISCUSSION This thesis is based on
- Page 66 and 67:
Development of a new patient-report
- Page 68 and 69:
Construct validity (HAGOS) Validati
- Page 70 and 71:
minimal change, the estimates fall
- Page 72 and 73:
without causing stabilisation probl
- Page 74 and 75:
Groin pain affecting muscle strengt
- Page 76 and 77:
CONCLUSION � Reliable, valid and
- Page 78 and 79:
SUMMARY Clinical outcome measures f
- Page 80 and 81:
assessment of symptoms, activity li
- Page 82 and 83:
undersøgelse (studie III) var form
- Page 84 and 85:
REFERENCES 1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB
- Page 86 and 87:
30. Birrell F, Lunt M, Macfarlane G
- Page 88 and 89:
59. Stratford PW, Balsor BE. A comp
- Page 90 and 91:
89. Martin RL, Irrgang JJ, Burdett
- Page 92 and 93:
115. Thorborg K, Roos E, Bartels EM
- Page 94 and 95:
143. Byrd JW, Jones KS. Arthroscopi
- Page 96 and 97:
168. Lequesne MG, Mery C, Samson M,
Change language