The Arthroplasty Candidacy Help Engine tool to select candidates for hip and knee replacement surgery: development and economic modelling.

BACKGROUND There is no good evidence to support the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in setting preoperative thresholds for referral for hip and knee replacement surgery. Despite this, the practice is widespread in the NHS. OBJECTIVES/RESEARCH QUESTIONS Can clinical outcome tools be used to set thresholds for hip or knee replacement? What is the relationship between the choice of threshold and the cost-effectiveness of surgery? METHODS A systematic review identified PROMs used to assess patients undergoing hip/knee replacement. Their measurement properties were compared and supplemented by analysis of existing data sets. For each candidate score, we calculated the absolute threshold (a preoperative level above which there is no potential for improvement) and relative thresholds (preoperative levels above which individuals are less likely to improve than others). Owing to their measurement properties and the availability of data from their current widespread use in the NHS, the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and Oxford Hip Score (OHS) were selected as the most appropriate scores to use in developing the Arthroplasty Candidacy Help Engine (ACHE) tool. The change in score and the probability of an improvement were then calculated and modelled using preoperative and postoperative OKS/OHSs and PROM scores, thereby creating the ACHE tool. Markov models were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of total hip/knee arthroplasty in the NHS for different preoperative values of OKS/OHSs over a 10-year period. The threshold values were used to model how the ACHE tool may change the number of referrals in a single UK musculoskeletal hub. A user group was established that included patients, members of the public and health-care representatives, to provide stakeholder feedback throughout the research process. RESULTS From a shortlist of four scores, the OHS and OKS were selected for the ACHE tool based on their measurement properties, calculated preoperative thresholds and cost-effectiveness data. The absolute threshold was 40 for the OHS and 41 for the OKS using the preferred improvement criterion. A range of relative thresholds were calculated based on the relationship between a patient's preoperative score and their probability of improving after surgery. For example, a preoperative OHS of 35 or an OKS of 30 translates to a 75% probability of achieving a good outcome from surgical intervention. The economic evaluation demonstrated that hip and knee arthroplasty cost of < £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year for patients with any preoperative score below the absolute thresholds (40 for the OHS and 41 for the OKS). Arthroplasty was most cost-effective for patients with lower preoperative scores. LIMITATIONS The ACHE tool supports but does not replace the shared decision-making process required before an individual decides whether or not to undergo surgery. CONCLUSION The OHS and OKS can be used in the ACHE tool to assess an individual patient's suitability for hip/knee replacement surgery. The system enables evidence-based and informed threshold setting in accordance with local resources and policies. At a population level, both hip and knee arthroplasty are highly cost-effective right up to the absolute threshold for intervention. Our stakeholder user group felt that the ACHE tool was a useful evidence-based clinical tool to aid referrals and that it should be trialled in NHS clinical practice to establish its feasibility. FUTURE WORK Future work could include (1) a real-world study of the ACHE tool to determine its acceptability to patients and general practitioners and (2) a study of the role of the ACHE tool in supporting referral decisions. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

[1]  Jacob Cohen Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[2]  A. Gray,et al.  The use of patient-reported outcome measures to guide referral for hip and knee arthroplasty , 2020, The bone & joint journal.

[3]  J. Katz,et al.  Knee replacement , 2018, The Lancet.

[4]  Furno Marilena,et al.  Quantile Regression , 2018, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics.

[5]  A. Gray,et al.  Associations between preoperative Oxford hip and knee scores and costs and quality of life of patients undergoing primary total joint replacement in the NHS England: an observational study , 2018, BMJ Open.

[6]  G. Collins,et al.  Lower limb arthroplasty: can we produce a tool to predict outcome and failure, and is it cost-effective? An epidemiological study , 2017 .

[7]  Madhu Mazumdar,et al.  Impact of total knee replacement practice: cost effectiveness analysis of data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative , 2017, British Medical Journal.

[8]  P. Clarke,et al.  Using Patient-Reported Outcomes for Economic Evaluation: Getting the Timing Right. , 2016, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[9]  P. Dieppe,et al.  Improving patients’ experience and outcome of total joint replacement: the RESTORE programme , 2016 .

[10]  R. Fitzpatrick,et al.  Systematic review of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures used in patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty , 2016, Patient Related Outcome Measures.

[11]  N. Black,et al.  Cost-Effectiveness of Five Commonly Used Prosthesis Brands for Total Knee Replacement in the UK: A Study Using the NJR Dataset , 2016, PloS one.

[12]  M. Nevitt,et al.  Longitudinal Course of Physical Function in People With Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis: Data From the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study and the Osteoarthritis Initiative , 2016, Arthritis care & research.

[13]  Annett Wechsler,et al.  Applied Methods Of Cost Effectiveness Analysis In Healthcare , 2016 .

[14]  Ralf Dresner,et al.  Health Measurement Scales A Practical Guide To Their Development And Use , 2016 .

[15]  L. Arendt-Nielsen,et al.  A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Total Knee Replacement. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  N. Devlin,et al.  The Influence of Cost-Effectiveness and Other Factors on NICE Decisions , 2010, Health economics.

[17]  J. V. van Dieën,et al.  Increased knee muscle strength is associated with decreased activity limitations in established knee osteoarthritis: Two-year follow-up study in the Amsterdam osteoarthritis cohort. , 2015, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[18]  S. Noble,et al.  Local anaesthetic wound infiltration in addition to standard anaesthetic regimen in total hip and knee replacement: long-term cost-effectiveness analyses alongside the APEX randomised controlled trials , 2015, BMC Medicine.

[19]  S. Bartels,et al.  Impact of obesity on disability, function, and physical activity: data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative , 2015, Scandinavian journal of rheumatology.

[20]  R. Grieve,et al.  Lifetime cost effectiveness of different brands of prosthesis used for total hip arthroplasty: a study using the NJR dataset. , 2015, The bone & joint journal.

[21]  C. Lavernia,et al.  The Cost-Utility of Total Hip Arthroplasty: Earlier Intervention, Improved Economics. , 2015, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[22]  H. Mistry,et al.  Cost effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty in osteoarthritis: comparison of devices with differing bearing surfaces and modes of fixation. , 2015, The bone & joint journal.

[23]  P. Nandy,et al.  Osteoarthritis disease progression model using six year follow‐up data from the osteoarthritis initiative , 2015, Journal of clinical pharmacology.

[24]  Matthew L. Costa,et al.  Total hip replacement and surface replacement for the treatment of pain and disability resulting from end-stage arthritis of the hip (review of technology appraisal guidance 2 and 44): systematic review and economic evaluation. , 2015, Health technology assessment.

[25]  Barbara Gandek,et al.  Measurement Properties of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index: A Systematic Review , 2015, Arthritis care & research.

[26]  P. Dieppe,et al.  Effect of local anaesthetic infiltration on chronic postsurgical pain after total hip and knee replacement: the APEX randomised controlled trials , 2015, Pain.

[27]  David W. Murray,et al.  Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery , 2015, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[28]  Leslie G. Portney Dpt PhD Fapta,et al.  Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice , 2015 .

[29]  M. Cowie National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. , 2015, European heart journal.

[30]  W. Plötz,et al.  The impact of preoperative patient characteristics on the cost-effectiveness of total hip replacement: a cohort study , 2014, BMC Health Services Research.

[31]  Karl Claxton,et al.  The Value of Heterogeneity for Cost-Effectiveness Subgroup Analysis , 2014, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[32]  J. Katz,et al.  Trajectories and risk profiles of pain in persons with radiographic, symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: data from the osteoarthritis initiative. , 2014, Osteoarthritis and cartilage.

[33]  Ray Fitzpatrick,et al.  A randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different knee prostheses: the Knee Arthroplasty Trial (KAT). , 2014, Health technology assessment.

[34]  W. Lems,et al.  Three trajectories of activity limitations in early symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a 5-year follow-up study , 2013, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[35]  Q. Le Probabilistic mapping of the health status measure SF-12 onto the health utility measure EQ-5D using the US-population-based scoring models , 2014, Quality of Life Research.

[36]  K. Chalkidou About the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence - NICE. , 2013, Acta medica portuguesa.

[37]  R. P. Villanueva Total hip replacement in the UK : cost-effectiveness of a prediction tool and outcomes mapping , 2013 .

[38]  Helen Dakin,et al.  Review of studies mapping from quality of life or clinical measures to EQ-5D: an online database , 2013, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes.

[39]  N. Black,et al.  Functional Outcome, Revision Rates and Mortality after Primary Total Hip Replacement – A National Comparison of Nine Prosthesis Brands in England , 2013, PloS one.

[40]  Oliver Rivero-Arias,et al.  Response Mapping to Translate Health Outcomes into the Generic Health-Related Quality-of-Life Instrument EQ-5D: Introducing the mrs2eq and oks2eq Commands , 2013 .

[41]  Changes in Structure and Symptoms in Knee Osteoarthritis and Prediction of Future Knee Replacement Over 8 Years , 2013, Calcified Tissue International.

[42]  Neil A Segal,et al.  The Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study: Opportunities for Rehabilitation Research , 2013, PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation.

[43]  C. Cooper,et al.  The association of patient characteristics and surgical variables on symptoms of pain and function over 5 years following primary hip-replacement surgery: a prospective cohort study , 2013, BMJ Open.

[44]  Richard Grieve,et al.  Cemented, cementless, and hybrid prostheses for total hip replacement: cost effectiveness analysis , 2013, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[45]  Daniel L Riddle,et al.  Body weight changes and corresponding changes in pain and function in persons with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: A cohort study , 2013, Arthritis care & research.

[46]  Leena Sharma,et al.  Excess body weight and four‐year function outcomes: Comparison of African Americans and whites in a prospective study of osteoarthritis , 2013, Arthritis care & research.

[47]  F. Cicuttini,et al.  Associations between serum levels of inflammatory markers and change in knee pain over 5 years in older adults: a prospective cohort study , 2012, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[48]  N. Clement,et al.  Predicting the cost-effectiveness of total hip and knee replacement: a health economic analysis. , 2013, The bone & joint journal.

[49]  J. Raftery,et al.  Mapping the Oxford hip score onto the EQ-5D utility index , 2013, Quality of Life Research.

[50]  A. Coulter,et al.  Patient decision aids in knee replacement surgery. , 2012, The Knee.

[51]  P. Dieppe,et al.  Assessing function in patients undergoing joint replacement: a study protocol for a cohort study , 2012, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.

[52]  P. Beaulé,et al.  Validity of a short-term quality of life questionnaire in patients undergoing joint replacement: the Quality of Recovery-40. , 2012, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[53]  Felix Eckstein,et al.  Recent advances in osteoarthritis imaging—the Osteoarthritis Initiative , 2012, Nature Reviews Rheumatology.

[54]  C. Cooper,et al.  Clinical tool to identify patients who are most likely to achieve long‐term improvement in physical function after total hip arthroplasty , 2012, Arthritis care & research.

[55]  R. Fordham,et al.  The economic benefit of hip replacement: a 5-year follow-up of costs and outcomes in the Exeter Primary Outcomes Study , 2012, BMJ Open.

[56]  Helen Dakin,et al.  Mapping analyses to estimate EQ-5D utilities and responses based on Oxford Knee Score , 2012, Quality of Life Research.

[57]  L. Sharma,et al.  Knee confidence as it relates to physical function outcome in persons with or at high risk of knee osteoarthritis in the osteoarthritis initiative. , 2012, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[58]  C. Yamada,et al.  Optimal cut‐off point for homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance to discriminate metabolic syndrome in non‐diabetic Japanese subjects , 2012, Journal of diabetes investigation.

[59]  R. Fitzpatrick,et al.  Rationing of total knee replacement: a cost-effectiveness analysis on a large trial data set , 2012, BMJ Open.

[60]  N. Leidy,et al.  Content validity--establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 1--eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. , 2011, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[61]  A. Carr,et al.  Assessing patients for joint replacement: can pre-operative Oxford hip and knee scores be used to predict patient satisfaction following joint replacement surgery and to guide patient selection? , 2011, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[62]  Elizabeth Molsen,et al.  Content validity--establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force report: part 2--assessing respondent understanding. , 2011, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[63]  A. Davis,et al.  A longitudinal study to explain the pain‐depression link in older adults with osteoarthritis , 2011, Arthritis care & research.

[64]  D. Riddle,et al.  Psychological health impact on 2-year changes in pain and function in persons with knee pain: data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. , 2011, Osteoarthritis and cartilage.

[65]  M. Suarez‐Almazor,et al.  OARSI/OMERACT Initiative to Define States of Severity and Indication for Joint Replacement in Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis. An OMERACT 10 Special Interest Group , 2011, The Journal of Rheumatology.

[66]  D. Hall,et al.  Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials examining tinnitus management , 2011, The Laryngoscope.

[67]  J. Olver,et al.  Do patient-reported outcome measures in hip and knee arthroplasty rehabilitation have robust measurement attributes? A systematic review. , 2011, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[68]  P. Dieppe,et al.  Who should have knee joint replacement surgery for osteoarthritis? , 2011, International journal of rheumatic diseases.

[69]  J. Ranstam,et al.  Indications for hip and knee replacement in Sweden. , 2011, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[70]  M. Orrell,et al.  EQ-5D as a quality of life measure in people with dementia and their carers: evidence and key issues. , 2011, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[71]  P. Dieppe,et al.  The effect of local anaesthetic wound infiltration on chronic pain after lower limb joint replacement: A protocol for a double-blind randomised controlled trial , 2011, BMC musculoskeletal disorders.

[72]  J. Jordan,et al.  Forecasting the burden of advanced knee osteoarthritis over a 10-year period in a cohort of 60-64 year-old US adults. , 2011, Osteoarthritis and cartilage.

[73]  L. Roorda,et al.  Prognostic factors for the two‐year course of activity limitations in early osteoarthritis of the hip and/or knee , 2010, Arthritis care & research.

[74]  C. Howie,et al.  Predicting dissatisfaction following total knee replacement: a prospective study of 1217 patients. , 2010, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[75]  N. Welton,et al.  Equity in access to total joint replacement of the hip and knee in England: cross sectional study , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[76]  M. Nevitt,et al.  The independent effect of pain in one versus two knees on the presence of low physical function in a multicenter knee osteoarthritis study , 2010, Arthritis care & research.

[77]  C. Terwee,et al.  The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. , 2010, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[78]  J. Brazier,et al.  Populating an economic model with health state utility values: moving toward better practice. , 2010, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[79]  M. Nevitt,et al.  Clinically Important Improvement in Function Is Common in People with or at High Risk of Knee OA: The MOST Study , 2010, The Journal of Rheumatology.

[80]  P A Dieppe,et al.  Gender inequity in the provision of care for hip disease: population-based cross-sectional study. , 2010, Osteoarthritis and cartilage.

[81]  C. Cooper,et al.  Patient‐reported outcomes one year after primary hip replacement in a European Collaborative Cohort , 2010, Arthritis care & research.

[82]  N. Obuchowski,et al.  Assessing the Performance of Prediction Models: A Framework for Traditional and Novel Measures , 2010, Epidemiology.

[83]  G. J. Lankhorst,et al.  Prognosis of limitations in activities in osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a 3-year cohort study. , 2010, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[84]  Pennifer Erickson,et al.  Use of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and their modification: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Evaluating and Documenting Content Validity for the Use of Existing Instruments and Their Modification PRO Task Force Report. , 2009, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[85]  M. Dougados,et al.  OARSI/OMERACT Criteria of Being Considered a Candidate for Total Joint Replacement in Knee/Hip Osteoarthritis as an Endpoint in Clinical Trials Evaluating Potential Disease Modifying Osteoarthritic Drugs , 2009, The Journal of Rheumatology.

[86]  C. Terwee,et al.  Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments , 2009, Quality of Life Research.

[87]  M. Nevitt,et al.  The effects of impaired joint position sense on the development and progression of pain and structural damage in knee osteoarthritis. , 2009, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[88]  D. Murray,et al.  The trainer, the trainee and the surgeons' assistant: clinical outcomes following total hip replacement. , 2009, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[89]  A David Paltiel,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of total knee arthroplasty in the United States: patient risk and hospital volume. , 2009, Archives of internal medicine.

[90]  Yvonne Vergouwe,et al.  Prognosis and prognostic research: what, why, and how? , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[91]  D. Rowley,et al.  Variations in the pre-operative status of patients coming to primary hip replacement for osteoarthritis in European orthopaedic centres , 2009, BMC musculoskeletal disorders.

[92]  M. Dougados,et al.  Comparative evaluation of three semi-quantitative radiographic grading techniques for hip osteoarthritis in terms of validity and reproducibility in 1404 radiographs: report of the OARSI-OMERACT Task Force. , 2009, Osteoarthritis and cartilage.

[93]  G. Gorton,et al.  Outcome tools used for ambulatory children with cerebral palsy: responsiveness and minimum clinically important differences , 2008, Developmental medicine and child neurology.

[94]  ChiMat,et al.  NHS Atlas of Variation in Healthcare , 2008 .

[95]  D. Streiner,et al.  Health measurement scales , 2008 .

[96]  J. Lewsey,et al.  Revision Rates after Primary Hip and Knee Replacement in England between 2003 and 2006 , 2008, PLoS medicine.

[97]  K. Muir,et al.  Do estimates of cost-utility based on the EQ-5D differ from those based on the mapping of utility scores? , 2008, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[98]  Jose Luis Navarrro Espigares,et al.  Cost-outcome analysis of joint replacement: evidence from a Spanish public hospital , 2008 .

[99]  J. Zamora,et al.  Minimum detectable and minimal clinically important changes for pain in patients with nonspecific neck pain , 2008, BMC musculoskeletal disorders.

[100]  D. Murray,et al.  Obesity in total hip replacement. , 2008, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[101]  M. Suarez‐Almazor,et al.  Development and preliminary psychometric testing of a new OA pain measure--an OARSI/OMERACT initiative. , 2008, Osteoarthritis and cartilage.

[102]  P. Croft,et al.  Predicting the course of functional limitation among older adults with knee pain: do local signs, symptoms and radiographs add anything to general indicators? , 2008, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[103]  P. Banaszkiewicz,et al.  The mortality, morbidity and cost benefits of elective total knee arthroplasty in the nonagenarian population , 2008, International Orthopaedics.

[104]  A. Copay,et al.  Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. , 2007, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[105]  M. Aalabaf-Sabaghi Decision modelling for health economic evaluation , 2007, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

[106]  D W Murray,et al.  The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[107]  K. Stavem,et al.  Changes in pain, stiffness and physical function in patients with osteoarthritis waiting for hip or knee joint replacement surgery. , 2007, Osteoarthritis and cartilage.

[108]  M. Suarez‐Almazor,et al.  OMERACT/OARSI initiative to define states of severity and indication for joint replacement in hip and knee osteoarthritis. , 2007, The Journal of rheumatology.

[109]  R. Brant,et al.  The Western Canada Waiting List Project: development of a priority referral score for hip and knee arthroplasty. , 2007, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[110]  H. Sintonen,et al.  Effectiveness of hip or knee replacement surgery in terms of quality-adjusted life years and costs , 2007, Acta orthopaedica.

[111]  C. Terwee,et al.  Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. , 2007, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[112]  U. S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Cen Research,et al.  Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance , 2006, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[113]  J. Steiner,et al.  Health and Quality of Life Outcomes , 2006 .

[114]  Henrica C W de Vet,et al.  Minimal Clinically Important Change for Pain Intensity, Functional Status, and General Health Status in Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain , 2006, Spine.

[115]  Oliver Rivero-Arias,et al.  Estimating the Association between SF-12 Responses and EQ-5D Utility Values by Response Mapping , 2006, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[116]  D. Jette,et al.  Functional independence domains in patients receiving rehabilitation in skilled nursing facilities: evaluation of psychometric properties. , 2005, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[117]  A. Carr,et al.  Population survey comparing older adults with hip versus knee pain in primary care. , 2005, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[118]  J. Lewsey,et al.  Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for routine use in Treatment Centres: recommendations based on a review of the scientific evidence , 2005 .

[119]  A. Garratt,et al.  Patient-assessed health instruments for the knee: a structured review. , 2004, Rheumatology.

[120]  Ron D Hays,et al.  Half standard deviation estimate of the minimally important difference in HRQOL scores? , 2004, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[121]  P. Dieppe,et al.  Trends in hip and knee joint replacement: socioeconomic inequalities and projections of need , 2004, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[122]  Richard W. Bohannon,et al.  Measurement properties of the short form (SF)-12 applied to patients with stroke , 2004, International journal of rehabilitation research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue internationale de recherches de readaptation.

[123]  Haomiao Jia,et al.  Mapping the SF-12 to the EuroQol EQ-5D Index in a National US Sample , 2004, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[124]  H. V. van Stel,et al.  Waiting for total hip arthroplasty: avoidable loss in quality time and preventable deterioration. , 2004, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[125]  R. Fitzpatrick,et al.  Equity and need when waiting for total hip replacement surgery. , 2004, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[126]  Gang Xu,et al.  A Visitor's Guide to Effect Sizes – Statistical Significance Versus Practical (Clinical) Importance of Research Findings , 2004, Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice.

[127]  Irene M. Stratton,et al.  UK prospective diabetes study (UKPDS) , 2004, Diabetologia.

[128]  Yi-Chung Pai,et al.  Physical functioning over three years in knee osteoarthritis: role of psychosocial, local mechanical, and neuromuscular factors. , 2003, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[129]  A. MacCormick,et al.  Prioritizing patients for elective surgery: a systematic review , 2003, ANZ journal of surgery.

[130]  Martin J Buxton,et al.  Stratified cost-effectiveness analysis: a framework for establishing efficient limited use criteria. , 2003, Health economics.

[131]  G. Norman,et al.  Interpretation of Changes in Health-related Quality of Life: The Remarkable Universality of Half a Standard Deviation , 2003, Medical care.

[132]  J. Ware SF-36 health survey: Manual and interpretation guide , 2003 .

[133]  農林水産奨励会農林水産政策情報センター,et al.  The green book : appraisal and evaluation in central government , 2003 .

[134]  E. V. van Sonderen,et al.  Statistical significant change versus relevant or important change in (quasi) experimental design: some conceptual and methodological problems in estimating magnitude of intervention-related change in health services research , 2002, International journal of integrated care.

[135]  R. Fitzpatrick,et al.  Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[136]  M. Brazzelli,et al.  A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty for treatment of hip disease. , 2002, Health technology assessment.

[137]  S. Hajat,et al.  Primary total hip replacement: variations in patient management in Oxford & Anglia, Trent, Yorkshire & Northern 'regions'. , 2001, Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

[138]  D. Thomas Knee Arthroplasty , 2001, Springer Vienna.

[139]  P Sandercock,et al.  How do scores on the EuroQol relate to scores on the SF-36 after stroke? , 1999, Stroke.

[140]  R. Edwards,et al.  Points for pain: waiting list priority scoring systems , 1999, BMJ.

[141]  J. O'fallon,et al.  Randomized comparison of four tools measuring overall quality of life in patients with advanced cancer. , 1998, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[142]  M J Buxton,et al.  Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. , 1998, Health technology assessment.

[143]  A. Carr,et al.  Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. , 1998, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[144]  C. Lavernia,et al.  Cost effectiveness and quality of life in knee arthroplasty. , 1997, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[145]  P. Dolan,et al.  Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. , 1997, Medical care.

[146]  H. Sintonen,et al.  Costs and Cost-Effectiveness in Hip and Knee Replacements: A Prospective Study , 1997, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[147]  J. Wright,et al.  A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. , 1997, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[148]  D C Hadorn,et al.  The New Zealand priority criteria project. Part 1: Overview , 1997, BMJ.

[149]  R. Brooks EuroQol: the current state of play. , 1996, Health policy.

[150]  P. Dolan,et al.  The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. , 1996, Health economics.

[151]  C. Naylor,et al.  Primary hip and knee replacement surgery: Ontario criteria for case selection and surgical priority. , 1996, Quality in health care : QHC.

[152]  A. Carr,et al.  Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. , 1996, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[153]  D. Chalfin,et al.  Cost-effectiveness analysis in health care. , 1995, Hospital cost management and accounting.

[154]  P. Royston,et al.  Regression using fractional polynomials of continuous covariates: parsimonious parametric modelling. , 1994 .

[155]  UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group UK prospective diabetes study (UKPDS) , 1991 .

[156]  C. Goldsmith,et al.  Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. , 1988, The Journal of rheumatology.