Systematic review and standardised assessment of Chinese cross-cultural adapted hip Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs).

PURPOSE: To perform a systemic literature search to identify Chinese cross culturally adapted and new designed Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) used for hip assessment, then a standardized evaluation of available instruments in order to provide evidence of high-quality PROMs for clinical use and adoption in future hip registries. METHODS: A Systematic Review of the following databases: PUBMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, CNKI was performed to identify relevant PROMs. Instruments underwent standardized assessment and scoring using the EMPRO tool by two independent reviewers. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). RESULTS: 2188 articles were retrieved, with seven articles fitting the inclusion criteria consisting of six hip PROMs. Five PROMs were cross culturally adapted and one was originally designed in Mandarin Chinese. Total scores (/100) after EMPRO evaluation: Osteoarthritis of Knee and Hip Quality of Life (OAKHQOL): 55; Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS): 52; International Hip Outcome Tool (SC-iHOT-33): 45; Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS): 37; Questionnaire on the Perceptions and Functions of Patients about Total Hip Arthroplasty (QPFPTHA): 36; Oxford Hip Score (OHS): 35. ICC values were 0.73 for the SC-iHOT-33 and ranged between 0.83-0.93 for the other PROMs indicating good to excellent inter-rater agreement. CONCLUSION: Among the commonly used hip-specific PROMs found in arthroplasty registries, none of the Chinese adapted versions evaluated by EMPRO is currently rated acceptable for clinical use. Only OAKHQOL and HAGOS reached acceptability threshold. Further research on the attributes of cross-cultural adaptation, interpretability and burden assessment would be helpful.

Cross-cultural adaptation and validity of the Chinese version of the Oxford elbow score.

BACKGROUND: The Oxford Elbow score (OES) is a patient-reported outcome measure designed to evaluate patients before and after elbow surgery. Although various translated versions of the score are available, there is no Chinese mandarin version. The aim of this study was to develop a Chinese language version of the OES and evaluate its psychometric properties for clinical use. METHODS: The English version of the OES was forward translated into Chinese, followed by a backward translation into English. Then a final Chinese version was produced following expert committee discussions and pilot study of 11 patients. A smart device compatible electronic version of the OES was designed and completed by 70 patients with elbow pathology alongside the Quick-Dash and the SF-36. Reliability was assessed by measuring intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for test-retest reliability and Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency. Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to test the construct validity. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to evaluate the 3-factor structure of the OES. RESULTS: The overall Cronbach's α coefficient was 0.906 and for the 3 different domains Function, Pain, and Social-psychological was 0.806, 0.796, and 0.776 respectively. The overall intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.764 and for the three different domains Function, Pain, and Social-psychological was 0.764, 0.624, and 0.590 respectively. The Spearman's coefficient for correlation, between the QuickDASH and OES domains Function, Pain, and Social-psychological, was - 0.824, - 0.734, and - 0.622 respectively, showing strong correlation (r > 0.5; p < 0.01). There were moderate correlations between OES domains and the physical functioning, role physical, and strong correlations with bodily pain subscales of the PCS domain of the SF-36; results were insignificant for all other subscales. CONCLUSION: Our translated Chinese mandarin OES version (mainland) was reliable and valid, suitable for evaluating elbow disorders in the Chinese population. Reliability was measured using both the Cronbach's α for internal consistency and the intraclass correlation. Results were classified as "excellent" and were similar to results from the original OES. Electronic PROMs were used instead of the traditional paper-based PROMs for collection of data which was well tolerated by patients.