Loading [Contrib]/a11y/accessibility-menu.js
1.
Zhang Y, Ren J, Zang Y, Guo W, Disantis A, Martin RL. Cross-Culturally Adapted Versions of Patient Reported Outcome Measures for the Lower Extremity. IJSPT. 2023;18(3):653-686. doi:10.26603/001c.74528
Download all (3)
  • Figure 1. PRISMA Search Diagram
  • Figure 2. Number of Language Versions Available for Recommended Patient Reported Outcome Measures
  • Figure 3. Number of Language Versions Available for Recommended Cross-culturally Adapted Patient Reported Outcome Measures

Abstract

Background

A large number of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been developed in the English language for various lower extremity orthopaedic pathologies. Twenty different PROMs were recommended for 15 specific musculoskeletal lower extremity pathologies or surgeries. However, the availability of cross-culturally adapted versions of these recommended PROMs is unknown.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to identify the cross-culturally adapted versions of recommended PROMs for individuals experiencing orthopedic lower extremity pathologies or undergoing surgeries, and to identify the psychometric evidence that supports their utilization.

Study design

Literature Review

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL, SPORTDisucs and Scopus were searched for cross-culturally adapted translated studies through May 2022. The search strategy included the names of the 20 recommended PROMs from previous umbrella review along with the following terms: reliability, validity, responsiveness, psychometric properties and cross-cultural adaptation. Studies that presented a non-English language version of the PROM with evidence in at least one psychometric property to support its use were included. Two authors independently evaluated the studies for inclusion and independently extracted data.

Results

Nineteen PROMS had cross-culturally adapted and translated language versions. The KOOS, WOMAC, ACL-RSL, FAAM, ATRS, HOOS, OHS, MOXFQ and OKS were available in over 10 different language versions. Turkish, Dutch, German, Chinese and French were the most common languages, with each language having more than 10 PROMs with psychometric properties supporting their use. The WOMAC and KOOS were both available in 10 languages and had all three psychometric properties of reliability, validity, and responsiveness supporting their use.

Conclusion

Nineteen of the 20 recommended instruments were available in multiple languages. The PROM most frequently cross-culturally adapted and translated were the KOOS and WOMAC. PROMs were most frequently cross-culturally adapted and translated into Turkish. International researchers and clinicians may use this information to more consistently implement PROMs with the most appropriate psychometric evidence available to support their use.

Level of evidence

3a

INTRODUCTION

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are widely used in orthopaedic settings.1–5 The decision regarding which PROM to use should be based on the available psychometric evidence. Although a large number of PROMs have been developed in the English language for various lower extremity orthopaedic pathologies, the psychometric evidence supporting their use is highly variable.6–10 An umbrella review by Zhang et al.11 assessed 19 systematic reviews and found that 20 different PROMs were recommended for 15 specific musculoskeletal lower extremity pathologies or surgeries. However, the availability of cross-culturally adapted versions of these recommended PROMs is unknown.

The usefulness of a PROM can be defined by the instrument’s psychometric properties, including evidence for reliability, validity, and responsiveness. Test-retest reliability defines the stability of a score over time for patients who have not changed.1,2,12 A useful value for clinicians related to test-retest reliability is minimal detectable change (MDC) which is the change in score outside of measurement error. This reflects a true change in the patient.1,2,12 Validity refers to the degree to which the instrument measures the construct it was intended to measure.2,12 PROMs commonly offer evidence for concurrent validity which is the degree to which the scores of a PROM relate to scores on other instruments that measure the same or similar construct.1,2,12 Responsiveness is the ability of an instrument to detect a meaningful change in patient status over time. It can be defined with a value for minimal clinically important difference (MCID).1,2,12,13 A PROM may be more useful to clinicians and researchers when there is evidence for the three psychometric properties of reliability, validity, and responsiveness.

Cross-cultural adaptation studies are needed to translate PROMs into a variety of languages that will allow for more international implementation.14 Cross-cultural adaption studies ensure that the items and responses for the translated PROMs have the same meaning as the original language version.15 Clinicians and researchers need to not only be aware of recommended PROMs for specific lower extremity pathologies, but also be aware of which versions are cross-culturally adapted. The purpose of this study was to identify the cross-culturally adapted versions of recommended PROMs for individuals experiencing orthopedic lower extremity pathologies or undergoing surgeries, and to identify the psychometric evidence that supports their utilization.

METHOD

The current study utilized the results of a previous umbrella review to identify which of the 20 recommended PROMs have been translated and cross-culturally adapted.11 (Table 1) A literature review was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL, SPORTDisucs and Scopus Search from database inception to May 2022. The search strategy and terms are listed in Table 2. Studies were included if a non-English language version of one of the 20 recommended PROMs was cross-culturally adapted into another language while providing evidence of one psychometric property (reliability, validity and responsiveness) to support its use. Studies on individuals less than age 18 were excluded. Two authors independently evaluated the studies for inclusion and independently completed data extraction. Any conflicts were resolved by a third author. Cross-culturally adapted language versions for each of the 20 recommended PROMs were identified and recorded. The supporting psychometric properties for reliability, validity, and responsiveness for each version were extracted and recorded on a data collection spreadsheet for tabulation.

Table 1.Recommended Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Systematic review recommended PROMs Pathology/ Surgical Procedure
ACL-RSI Anterior cruciate ligament injury
A-FORM Recovery after Ankle Fractures
ATRS Achilles’ tendon rupture
AKPS Patellofemoral pain syndrome
FAAM Chronic Ankle instability
FADI Chronic Ankle instability
HAGOS Groin pain
Hip Arthroscopy for labral pathology
Non-arthritic hip joint pain, femoroacetabular impingement, Hip labral pathology
HOS Hip Arthroscopy for labral pathology
Non-arthritic hip joint pain, femoroacetabular impingement, Hip labral pathology
HOS combined with NAHS Hip Arthroscopy
HOOS Hip osteoarthritis
Total Hip Arthroplasty for osteoarthritis
iHOT-12 Hip Arthroscopy for labral pathology
Non-arthritic hip joint pain, femoroacetabular impingement, hip labral pathology
iHOT-33 Hip Arthroscopy for labral pathology
Non-arthritic hip joint pain, femoroacetabular impingement, Hip labral pathology
KOOS Total Knee Arthroplasty for osteoarthritis
KOS-ADLS Patellofemoral pain syndrome
MOXFQ Foot or ankle diseases
Surgery for hallux valgus
OHS Total Hip Arthroplasty for osteoarthritis
OKS Total Knee Arthroplasty for osteoarthritis
SEFAS Surgery for hallux valgus
Rheumatoid arthritis in the foot and ankle
WOMAC Knee osteoarthritis
Total Hip Arthroplasty for osteoarthritis
Total Knee Arthroplasty for osteoarthritis
WORQ Total Knee Arthroplasty for osteoarthritis

Abbreviations: ACL-RSI, ACL-Return to Sport after Injury Scale; A-FORM, Ankle-fracture outcome of rehabilitation measure; AKPS, Anterior Knee Pain Scale; ATRS, Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score; FAAM, Functional Ankle Ability Measure; FADI, Foot and Ankle Disability Index; HAGOS, The Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score; HOS, Hip Outcome Score; HOOS, Hip dysfunction and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; IHOT, International Hip Outcome Tool; KOOS, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; KOS-ADLS, Knee Outcome Survey of Daily Living Scale; MOXFQ, The Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire; NAHS, Non-Arthritic Hip Score; OHS, Oxford hip score; OKS, Oxford Knee Score; SEFAS, Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score; WOMAC, The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index; WORQ, The Work Osteoarthritis or joint replacement questionnaire

Table 2.Search Strategy
(Reliability) OR (validity) OR (responsiveness) OR (“psychometric properties”) OR (“cross-cultural adaptation”) AND ACL-Return to Sport after Injury Scale (ACL-RSI)
Ankle-fracture outcome of Rehabilitation Measure (A-FORM)
Anterior Knee Pain Scale (AKPS)
Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS)
Functional Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM)
Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI)
The Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS)
Hip Outcome Score (HOS)
Hip dysfunction and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS)
International Hip Outcome Tool (IHOT)
Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)
Knee Outcome Survey-Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADLS)
The Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ)
Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS)
Oxford Hip Score (OHS)
Oxford Knee Score (OKS)
Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS)
The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC)
The Work Osteoarthritis or Joint Replacement Questionnaire (WORQ)

RESULTS

The search identified 9064 articles. 312 met the inclusion criteria. (Figure 1) Of the 20 recommended PROMs, 19 were cross-culturally adapted into languages other than English (Table 3 and Figure 1). The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), ACL-Return to Sport after Injury Scale (ACL-RSL), Functional Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS), Hip dysfunction and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), Oxford hip score (OHS), The Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) and Oxford hip score (OKS) were available in over 10 different language versions. (Figure 2) A breakdown of the PROMs available in languages other than English are presented in Figure 3. Turkish, Dutch, German, Chinese, and French were the most common languages. Each of these versions had more than 10 PROMs with psychometric properties supporting their use.

Table 3.Available Language Versions for Recommended Patient Reported Outcome Measures
PROMs Language versions
ACL-RSL Arabic16; Brazilian17; Chinese18,19; Dutch20,21; French22; German23; Italian24–26; Japanese27; Korean28; Lithuanian29; Norwegian30; Spanish31; Swedish32; Turkish33
ATRS Chinese34; Danish35; Dutch36,37; French38; Greek39; Italian40; Korean41; Norwegian42; Persian43; Portuguese44; Polish45; Swedish46; Turkish47
AKPS Arabic48; Brazilian49; Dutch50,51; French52; Greek53; Norwegian54; Spanish55
A-FORM N/A
FAAM Brazilian56; Chinese57; Danish58; Dutch59; Finnish60; French61; German62; Italian63; Japanese64; Persian65; Spanish66,67; Thai68; Turkish69–71
FADI Italian72
HAGOS Brazilian73; Chinese74; Danish75,76; Dutch77–79; Italian80; Norwegian76; Swedish81
HOOS Chinese82; Dutch83; French84; German85,86; Italian87; Japanese88; Korean89; Persian90; Polish91,92; Portuguese93,94; Romanian95; Thai96; Turkish97
HOS Brazilian98; German99,100; Korean101; Portuguese102; Romanian103; Spanish104; Turkish105
IHOT-12 Dutch106; French107; German108; Greek109; Japanese110; Swedish111; Turkish112
IHOT-33 Chinese113; Dutch114; French115; German116; Spanish117; Thai118
KOOS Arabic119–122; Chinese123–127; Danish128; Dutch129–131; Finnish132; French133,134; Filipino135; German136; Greek137; Hindi138; Icelandic139; India140; Indonesian141; Italian142,143; Japanese144–147; Malay148; Norwegian128; Persian149–154; Polish155,156; Portuguese157–159; Spanish160–162; Swedish171-173; Turkish163,164;Urdu165
KOS-ADLS Arabic166,167; Chinese168; French169; German170; Greek171; Persian152; Polish172; Portuguese173; Turkish174
MOXFQ Chinese175; Dutch176; Finnish177; French178; German179,180; Italian181; Korean182; Persian183; Spanish184,185; Turkish186,187;
NHS Portuguese188; Turkish189
OHS Chinese190; Danish191,192; Dutch193; French194; German195–197; Indonesian198; Italian199; Japanese200; Korean201; Persian202,203; Romanian103; Spanish204,205; Turkish206
OKS Arabic207–209; Chinese210–218; Dutch219; Estonian220; Finish221; French222,223; German224,225; Greek226; Japanese146,227; Korean228; Persian229; Portuguese230; Slovenia231; Spanish205,232; Thai233; Turkish234
SEFAS Danish235; German236; Spanish- French237; Swedish238–242; Thai243; Turkish244
WORQ Korean245
WOMAC Arabic246,247; Bengali248; Brazilian249–251; Chinese252–256; Dutch131,257–259; Finnish260–262; French263; French-Canadian264,265; German266–272; Greek273,274; Hebrew275; Italian276,277; Japanese278,279; Korean280,281; Malay282; Marathi283; Moroccan284; Nepali285; Persian286,287; Spanish288–295; Swedish296–298; Thai299,300; Turkish301–303

Abbreviations: ACL-RSI,ACL-Return to Sport after Injury Scale; A-FORM, Ankle-fracture outcome of rehabilitation measure; AKPS, Anterior Knee Pain Scale; ATRS, Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score; FAAM, Functional Ankle Ability Measure; FADI, Foot and Ankle Disability Index; HAGOS, The Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score; HOS, Hip Outcome Score; HOOS, Hip dysfunction and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; IHOT, International Hip Outcome Tool; KOOS, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; KOS-ADLS, Knee Outcome Survey of Daily Living Scale; MOXFQ, The Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire; NAHS, Non-Arthritic Hip Score; OHS, Oxford hip score; OKS, Oxford Knee Score; SEFAS, Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score; WOMAC, The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index; WORQ, The Work Osteoarthritis or joint replacement questionnaire

Figure 1
Figure 1.PRISMA Search Diagram
Figure 2
Figure 2.Number of Language Versions Available for Recommended Patient Reported Outcome Measures

Abbreviations: ACL-RSI,ACL-Return to Sport after Injury Scale; ADLS, Activities of Daily Living Scale; A-FORM, Ankle-fracture outcome of rehabilitation measure; AKPS, Anterior Knee Pain Scale; ATRS, Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score; FAAM, Functional Ankle Ability Measure; FADI, Foot and Ankle Disability Index; HAGOS, The Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score; HOS, Hip Outcome Score; HOOS, Hip dysfunction and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; IHOT, International Hip Outcome Tool; KOOS, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; MOXFQ, The Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire; NAHS, Non-Arthritic Hip Score; OHS, Oxford hip score; OKS, Oxford Knee Score; SEFAS, Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score; WOMAC, The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index; WORQ, The Work Osteoarthritis or joint replacement questionnaire

Figure 3
Figure 3.Number of Language Versions Available for Recommended Cross-culturally Adapted Patient Reported Outcome Measures

The cross-culturally adapted translated PROMs with all three psychometric properties for reliability, validity and responsiveness are listed in Tables 4, 5, and 6. They corresponded to the hip, knee, and foot and ankle, respectively. Cross-culturally adapted PROMs that do not have all three psychometric properties are listed in the Appendix. In addition, the number of research studies supporting each of the psychometric properties of reliability, validity, and responsiveness for the hip, knee, and foot and ankle are also shown in Tables 4, 5, and 6, respectively.

The WOMAC and the KOOS were both available in 10 languages and had all three psychometric properties of reliability, validity, and responsiveness supporting their use. The HOOS and OHS were both available in seven languages having all three psychometric elements of reliability, validity and responsiveness supporting their use. The most well studied PROMs were the German-WOMAC, Spanish-WOMAC, Swedish-KOOS and Swedish-SEFAS. (Tables 4-6) There were 124 cross-culturally adapted PROMs that had only studies providing evidence for reliability and/or validity. (Appendix)

Table 4.The Cross-culturally Adapted Translated Hip Patient Reported Outcome Measures with all three Psychometric Properties
Hip PROM
(Number of Language Versions)
Language Version Reliability Validity Responsiveness
HAGOS Chinese 174 174 174
HOOS French 184 184 184
German 186 285,86 186
Italian 187 187 187
Japanese 188 188 188
Korean 189 189 189
Polish 291,92 291,92 192
Chinese 182 182 182
HOS German 299 299,100 1100
Korean 1101 1101 1101
Turkish 1105 1105 1105
IHOT-12 French 1107 1107 1107
German 1108 1108 1108
Greek 1109 1109 1109
Japanese 1110 1110 1110
Swedish 1111 1111 1111
IHOT-33 Chinese 1113 1113 1113
German 1116 1116 1116
OHS Chinese 1190 1190 1190
German 1195 3195–197 2196,197
Indonesian 1198 1198 1198
Italian 1199 1199 1199
Japanese 1200 1200 1200
Korean 1201 1201 1201
Spanish 2204,205 2204,205 1204
WOMAC
Chinese 3252–254 5252–256 2254,256
Dutch 4131,257–259 4131,257–259 1259
Finnish 2260,261 3260–262 1260
German 3266,267,272 4266,267,269,270,272 3268,269,271
Italian 1276 1276 1277
Korean 1280 2280,281 1280
Spanish 4289,292,295 5288,289,292–294 4290–293
Swedish 3296–298 3296–298 1297
Thai 2299,300 2299,300 1299
Turkish 3301–303 3301–303 1301

Abbreviations: HAGOS, The Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score; HOS, Hip Outcome Score; HOOS, Hip dysfunction and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; IHOT, International Hip Outcome Tool; OHS, Oxford hip score; WOMAC, The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index

Table 5.The Cross-culturally Adapted Translated Knee Patient Reported Outcome Measures with all three Psychometric Properties
Knee
(Number of Language Versions)
Language Version Reliability Validity Responsiveness
ACL-RSL Dutch 120 120 121
AKPS Brazilian 149 149 149
KOOS




Chinese 5123–127 5123–127 2125,127
French 2133,134 2133,134 2133,134
Hindi 1138 1138 1138
Japanese 1144 3144,145,147 1146
Persian 4149–152 2149–152 1154
Portuguese 3157–159 3157–159 2157–159
Spanish 2160,162 3160–162 3160–162
Swedish 3304–306 3304–306 3304–306
Turkish 1163 1163 1164
Dutch 2129,130 2129,130 1130
KOS-ADLS
Arabic 2166,167 2166,167 1167
Chinese 1168 1168 1168
Persian 1152 1152 1152
Polish 1172 1172 1172
Portuguese 1173 1173 1173
OKS Arabic 3207–209 3207–209 1209
Finish 1221 1221 1221
German 2224,225 2224,225 1225
Japanese 1227 1227 1146

Abbreviations: ACL-RSI, ACL-Return to Sport after Injury Scale; AKPS, Anterior Knee Pain Scale; KOOS, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; KOS-ADLS, Knee Outcome Survey of Daily Living Scale OKS, Oxford Knee Score

Table 6.The Cross-culturally Adapted Translated Foot and Ankle Patient Reported Outcome Measures with all three Psychometric Properties
Foot and Ankle
(Number of Language Versions)
Language Version Reliability Validity Responsiveness
ATRS Chinese 134 134 134
Dutch 137 137 136
MOXFQ German 2179,180 2179,180 2179,180
Italian 1181 1181 1181
Spanish 2184,185 2184,185 2184,185
SEFAS Danish 1235 1235 1235
German 1236 1236 1236
Swedish 3238–240 4238–240,242 4238–241

Abbreviations: ATRS, Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score; MOXFQ, The Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire; SEFAS, Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score

DISCUSSION

Of the 20 PROMs with appropriate psychometric properties that were previously identified by Zhang et al.,11 19 have been cross-culturally adapted into language versions other than English. The KOOS and WOMAC were found to be available in 24 and 23 different languages, respectively. The most commonly culturally adapted language was Turkish, with 14 PROMs. There were 64 cross-culturally adapted translated PROMs with all three psychometric properties for reliability, validity, and responsiveness. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first review that summarizes the availability of cross-culturally adapted PROMs for either lower or upper extremity pathologies. The result of this study can be a useful resource for international clinicians and researchers when choosing a PROM to use based on the evidence available in their languages of interest.

While there are a variety of reasons PROMs may be cross-culturally adapted, pathology prevalence and length of time the PROM has been in use may be important factors. The authors’ identified nine PROMs that were cross-culturally adapted into 10 different languages, while 11 PROMs were cross-culturally adapted into less than 10. The most common cross-culturally adapted PROMs, the KOOS and WOMAC, were developed for use in knee osteoarthritis. Similarly, the HOOS and OHS, available in 13 different languages, were originally developed for use in hip osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis in a prevalent pathology worldwide,307 which may explain the high frequency in which these PROMs were cross-culturally adapted into a language other than English.

The KOOS and the WOMAC, were developed in 1988 and 1998, respectively.308,309 These instruments may be cross-culturally adapted at a higher frequency because of the length of time these instruments have been available. However, PROMs developed more recently, such as the ACL-RSL, FAAM, and ATRS, have also been cross-culturally adapted into 14, 13, and 13 different languages, respectively. (Figure 2) Anterior cruciate ligament tears, Achilles tendon ruptures, and ankle instability are common pathologies. This may help to explain why a larger number of language versions for these instruments exist, despite being developed more recently.

In addition to the pathology prevalence and length of time the PROM has been in use, the frequency at which PROMs are cited in published research studies may also influence whether the instrument has been cross-culturally adapted into languages other than English. The umbrella review by Zhang et al.11 found the WOMAC, HOOS, KOOS, ATRS, and FAAM were the most commonly cited instruments. These PROMs were also found to be the most frequently cross-culturally adapted. When specifically looking at these PROMs, the WOMAC consists of 24 items divided into three subscales: pain (5 items), stiffness (2 items) and physical function (17 items).310 The HOOS consists of 40 items311 while the KOOS consists of 42 items, with each PROM being divided into five subscales: 1) pain, 2) symptoms, 3) activities of daily living, 4) sport and recreation function, and 5) knee-related quality of life.312 ATRS consists of 10 items313 and the FAAM consists of a 29-item questionnaire divided into two subscales: activities of daily living (21item) and sports (8 times).314

According to the results of this study, there are 64 cross-culturally adapted language PROMs supported by all three properties of reliability, validity, and responsiveness. (Tables 4-6) Studies that cross-culturally adapt PROMs commonly offer evidence for reliability and validity with evidence for responsiveness being infrequently studied. (Appendix) This may be due to the fact that responsiveness studies require a more challenging longitudinal study design.

Limitations

A limitation of this study is that this review does not include a comprehensive search of all PROMs. Only cross-culturally adapted PROMs that were recommended in other systematic reviews were included in this review. Additionally, this review focused solely on musculoskeletal lower extremity pathologies. Regional and global PROMs, as well as those that pertain to the spine and upper extremity were not included in this current review. The study did not present the details regarding specific values that define reliability, validity and responsiveness for each PROM.

CONCLUSION

Of the 20 recommended PROMs identified in a previous review by Zhang et al.,11 19 were cross-culturally adapted into languages other than English. The PROMs most frequently cross-culturally adapted were the KOOS and WOMAC with 23 and 24 languages available, respectively. PROMs were most frequently cross-culturally adapted into Turkish. International researchers and clinicians may use this information to more consistently implement PROMs with the most appropriate psychometric evidence available to support their use.


Conflicts of Interest

The authors certify that they have no affiliations with or financial involvement in any organization or entity with a direct financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in the article

Funding

There is no financial support for the research.

Accepted: March 08, 2023 CDT

References

1.
Ueland TE, Disantis A, Carreira DS, Martin RL. Patient-reported outcome measures and clinically important outcome values in hip arthroscopy: a systematic review. JBJS Rev. 2021;9(1):e20.00084. doi:10.2106/jbjs.rvw.20.00084
Google Scholar
2.
Martin RL, Irrgang JJ. A survey of self-reported outcome instruments for the foot and ankle. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37(2):72-84. doi:10.2519/jospt.2007.2403
Google Scholar
3.
Thorborg K, Tijssen M, Habets B, et al. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires for young to middle-aged adults with hip and groin disability: a systematic review of the clinimetric evidence. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(12):812. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2014-094224
Google Scholar
4.
Harris K, Dawson J, Gibbons E, et al. Systematic review of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures used in patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2016;7:101-108. doi:10.2147/prom.s97774
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
5.
Gagnier JJ, Shen Y, Huang H. Psychometric Properties of patient-reported outcome measures for use in patients with anterior cruciate ligament injuries: a systematic review. JBJS Rev. 2018;6(4):e5. doi:10.2106/jbjs.rvw.17.00114
Google Scholar
6.
Hijji FY, Schneider AD, Pyper M, Laughlin RT. The popularity of outcome measures used in the foot and ankle literature. Foot Ankle Spec. 2020;13(1):58-68. doi:10.1177/1938640019826680
Google Scholar
7.
Haywood KL, Brett J, Tutton E, Staniszewska S. Patient-reported outcome measures in older people with hip fracture: a systematic review of quality and acceptability. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(4):799-812. doi:10.1007/s11136-016-1424-1
Google Scholar
8.
Ramkumar PN, Harris JD, Noble PC. Patient-reported outcome measures after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Bone Joint Res. 2015;4(7):120-127. doi:10.1302/2046-3758.47.2000380
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
9.
Kearney RS, Achten J, Lamb SE, Plant C, Costa ML. A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures used to assess Achilles tendon rupture management: what’s being used and should we be using it? Br J Sports Med. 2012;46(16):1102-1109. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2011-090497
Google Scholar
10.
Hunt KJ, Hurwit D. Use of patient-reported outcome measures in foot and ankle research. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(16):e118. doi:10.2106/jbjs.l.01476
Google Scholar
11.
Zhang Y, Yang Y, Ren J, et al. Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Lower Extremity Research. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. Published online 2022.
Google Scholar
12.
Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1147-1157. doi:10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
13.
Cepeda NA, Polascik BA, Ling DI. A primer on clinically important outcome values: going beyond relying on P values alone. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020;102(3):262-268. doi:10.2106/jbjs.19.00817
Google Scholar
14.
Epstein J, Santo RM, Guillemin F. A review of guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of questionnaires could not bring out a consensus. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(4):435-441. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.021
Google Scholar
15.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737-745. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006
Google Scholar
16.
Alzhrani M, Alzahrani H, Alshehri YS. Arabic Version of the short Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport After Injury Scale: translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation. Orthop J Sports Med. 2022;10(1):232596712110665. doi:10.1177/23259671211066509
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
17.
Silva LO, Mendes LMR, Lima POP, Almeida GPL. Translation, cross-adaptation and measurement properties of the Brazilian version of the ACL-RSI Scale and ACL-QoL Questionnaire in patients with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Braz J Phys Ther. 2018;22(2):127-134. doi:10.1016/j.bjpt.2017.09.006
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
18.
Chen T, Zhang P, Li Y, et al. Translation, cultural adaptation and validation of simplified Chinese version of the anterior cruciate ligament return to sport after injury (ACL-RSI) scale. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(8):e0183095. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0183095
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
19.
Jia ZY, Cui J, Wang W, et al. Translation and validation of the simplified Chinese version of the anterior cruciate ligament-return to sport after injury (ACL-RSI). Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(10):2997-3003. doi:10.1007/s00167-018-4850-5
Google Scholar
20.
Slagers AJ, Reininga IHF, van den Akker-Scheek I. The Dutch language anterior cruciate ligament return to sport after injury scale (ACL-RSI) – validity and reliability. J Sports Sci. 2017;35(4):393-401. doi:10.1080/02640414.2016.1167230
Google Scholar
21.
Slagers AJ, van den Akker-Scheek I, Geertzen JHB, Zwerver J, Reininga IHF. Responsiveness of the anterior cruciate ligament – Return to Sports after Injury (ACL-RSI) and Injury – Psychological Readiness to Return to Sport (I-PRRS) scales. J Sports Sci. 2019;37(21):2499-2505. doi:10.1080/02640414.2019.1646023
Google Scholar
22.
Sadeqi M, Klouche S, Bohu Y, Herman S, Lefevre N, Gerometta A. Progression of the psychological ACL-RSI Score and return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A prospective 2-year follow-up study from the French prospective anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction cohort Study (FAST). Orthop J Sports Med. 2018;6(12):232596711881281. doi:10.1177/2325967118812819
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
23.
Müller U, Schmidt M, Krüger-Franke M, Rosemeyer B. ACL-return to sport after injury scale as an important predictor for return to sport level I and II after ACL reconstruction (German version). Sport-Orthopadie - Sport-Traumatologie. 2014;30(2):135-144. doi:10.1016/j.orthtr.2014.01.009
Google Scholar
24.
Tortoli E, Francini L, Giovannico G, Ramponi C. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Italian version of the anterior cruciate ligament-return to sport after injury (ACL-RSI) scale. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020;30(4):1180-1186. doi:10.1007/s00167-020-06169-0
Google Scholar
25.
Thiebat G, Cucchi D, Spreafico A, et al. Italian version of the anterior cruciate ligament-return to sport after injury scale (IT ACL-RSI): translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation and ability to predict the return to sport at medium-term follow-up in a population of sport patients. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021;30(1):270-279. doi:10.1007/s00167-021-06498-8
Google Scholar
26.
Monaco E, Pisanu G, Carrozzo A, et al. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of the Italian version of the anterior cruciate ligament–return to sport after injury (ACL-RSI) scale and its integration into the K-STARTS test. J Orthop Traumatol. 2022;23(1):1-8. doi:10.1186/s10195-021-00622-7
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
27.
Hirohata K, Aizawa J, Furuya H, et al. The Japanese version of the anterior cruciate ligament-return to sport after injury (ACL-RSI) scale has acceptable validity and reliability. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020;28(8):2519-2525. doi:10.1007/s00167-020-05849-1
Google Scholar
28.
Ha JK, Kim JG, Yoon KH, et al. Korean version of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport after Injury Scale: translation and cross-cultural adaptation. Clin Orthop Surg. 2019;11(2):164-169. doi:10.4055/cios.2019.11.2.164
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
29.
Salatkaitė S, Šiupšinskas L, Gudas R. Translation and cultural adaptation of Lithuanian version of the anterior cruciate ligament return to sport after injury (ACL-RSI) scale. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(7):e0219593. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0219593
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
30.
Faleide AGH, Inderhaug E, Vervaat W, et al. Anterior cruciate ligament—return to sport after injury scale: validation of the Norwegian language version. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020;28(8):2634-2643. doi:10.1007/s00167-020-05901-0
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
31.
Sala-Barat E, Álvarez-Díaz P, Alentorn-Geli E, Webster KE, Cugat R, Tomás-Sabado J. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and measurement properties of the Spanish version of the anterior cruciate ligament-return to sport after injury (ACL-RSI-Sp) scale. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020;28(3):833-839. doi:10.1007/s00167-019-05517-z
Google Scholar
32.
Kvist J, Österberg A, Gauffin H, Tagesson S, Webster K, Ardern C. Translation and measurement properties of the Swedish version of ACL-Return to Sports after Injury questionnaire. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2013;23(5):568-575. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01438.x
Google Scholar
33.
Harput G, Tok D, Ulusoy B, et al. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the anterior cruciate ligament-return to sport after injury (ACL-RSI) scale into Turkish. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(1):159-164. doi:10.1007/s00167-016-4288-6
Google Scholar
34.
Cui J, Jia Z, Zhi X, et al. The chinese version of achilles tendon total rupture score: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):2. doi:10.1186/s12955-016-0574-8
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
35.
Ganestam A, Barfod K, Klit J, Troelsen A. Validity and reliability of the Achilles tendon total rupture score. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2013;52(6):736-739. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2013.07.004
Google Scholar
36.
Dams OC, Reininga IHF, Zwerver J, Diercks RL, van den Akker-Scheek I. The Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score is a responsive primary outcome measure: an evaluation of the Dutch version including minimally important change. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020;28(10):3330-3338. doi:10.1007/s00167-020-05924-7
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
37.
Opdam KTM, Zwiers R, Wiegerinck JI, et al. Reliability and validation of the Dutch Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(3):862-868. doi:10.1007/s00167-016-4242-7
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
38.
Buckinx F, Lecoq G, Bornheim S, et al. French translation and validation of the Achilles Tendon Total Rupture Score “ATRS.” Foot Ankle Surg. 2020;26(6):662-668. doi:10.1016/j.fas.2019.08.010
Google Scholar
39.
Touzopoulos P, Ververidis A, Giakas G, Drosos GI. Validation and cross-cultural adaptation of Greek version of Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score. Foot Ankle Surg. 2019;25(1):8-12. doi:10.1016/j.fas.2017.07.560
Google Scholar
40.
Vascellari A, Spennacchio P, Combi A, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and multi-centric validation of the Italian version of the Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS). Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(3):854-861. doi:10.1007/s00167-016-4152-8
Google Scholar
41.
Park YH, Cho HW, Choi JW, Kim HJ. Validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Korean translation of the Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22(1):876. doi:10.1186/s12891-021-04765-w
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
42.
Myhrvold SB, Sandnes Ø, Hoelsbrekken SE. Validity and reliability of the Norwegian translation of the Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(7):2045-2050. doi:10.1007/s00167-017-4689-1
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
43.
Ansari NN, Naghdi S, Hasanvand S, Fakhari Z, Kordi R, Nilsson-Helander K. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of Persian Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(4):1372-1380. doi:10.1007/s00167-015-3977-x
Google Scholar
44.
Zambelli R, Pinto RZ, Magalhães JMB, et al. Development of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the Achilles Tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS BrP): a cross-cultural adaptation with reliability and construct validity evaluation. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2016;8(1):11. doi:10.1186/s13102-016-0034-0
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
45.
Bąkowski P, Rubczak S, Wolff-Stefaniak M, Grygorowicz M, Piontek T. Reliability and validity of the Polish version of the Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(7):2074-2079. doi:10.1007/s00167-017-4764-7
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
46.
Nilsson-Helander K, Thomeé R, Grävare-Silbernagel K, et al. The Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS): development and validation. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(3):421-426. doi:10.1177/0363546506294856
Google Scholar
47.
Kaya Mutlu E, Celik D, Kiliçoglu Ö, Ozdincler AR, Nilsson-Helander K. The Turkish version of the Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(8):2427-2432. doi:10.1007/s00167-014-3042-1
Google Scholar
48.
Alshehri A, Lohman E, Daher NS, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties testing of the Arabic Anterior Knee Pain Scale. Med Sci Monit. 2017;23:1559-1582. doi:10.12659/msm.901264
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
49.
da Cunha RA, Costa LOP, Hespanhol LC Jr, Pires RS, Kujala UM, Lopes AD. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and clinimetric testing of instruments used to assess patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome in the Brazilian population. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2013;43(5):332-339. doi:10.2519/jospt.2013.4228
Google Scholar
50.
Kievit AJ, Breugem SJM, Sierevelt IN, et al. Dutch translation of the Kujala Anterior Knee Pain Scale and validation in patients after knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(11):2647-2653. doi:10.1007/s00167-013-2635-4
Google Scholar
51.
Ummels PEJ, Lenssen AF, Barendrecht M, Beurskens AJHM. Reliability of the Dutch translation of the Kujala Patellofemoral Score Questionnaire. Physiother Res Int. 2017;22(1):e1649. doi:10.1002/pri.1649
Google Scholar
52.
Buckinx F, Bornheim S, Remy G, et al. French translation and validation of the “Anterior Knee Pain Scale” (AKPS). Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(9):1089-1094. doi:10.1080/09638288.2017.1419288
Google Scholar
53.
Papadopoulos C, Constantinou A, Cheimonidou AZ, Stasinopoulos D. Greek cultural adaption and validation of the Kujala anterior knee pain scale in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39(7):704-708. doi:10.3109/09638288.2016.1161834
Google Scholar
54.
Hott A, Liavaag S, Juel NG, Brox JI, Ekeberg OM. The reliability, validity, interpretability, and responsiveness of the Norwegian version of the Anterior Knee Pain Scale in patellofemoral pain. Disabil Rehabil. 2021;43(11):1605-1614. doi:10.1080/09638288.2019.1671499
Google Scholar
55.
Gil-Gámez J, Pecos-Martín D, Kujala UM, et al. Validation and cultural adaptation of “Kujala Score” in Spanish. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(9):2845-2853. doi:10.1007/s00167-015-3521-z
Google Scholar
56.
Moreira TS, Magalhães L de C, Silva RD, Martin RL, Resende MA. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validity of the Brazilian version of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure questionnaire. Disabil Rehabil. 2016;38(25):2479-2490. doi:10.3109/09638288.2015.1137979
Google Scholar
57.
González-Sánchez M, Li GZ, Ruiz Muñoz M, Cuesta-Vargas AI. Foot and ankle ability measure to measure functional limitations in patients with foot and ankle disorders: a Chinese cross-cultural adaptation and validation. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39(21):2182-2189. doi:10.1080/09638288.2016.1219772
Google Scholar
58.
Obionu KC, Krogsgaard MR, Hansen CF, Comins JD. Dual-panel translation to Danish and Rasch validation of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM-DK). Foot Ankle Surg. 2021;28(5):588-594. doi:10.1016/j.fas.2021.06.007
Google Scholar
59.
Weel H, Zwiers R, Azim D, et al. Validity and reliability of a Dutch version of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(4):1348-1354. doi:10.1007/s00167-014-3480-9
Google Scholar
60.
Saarinen AJ, Uimonen MM, Suominen EN, Sandelin H, Repo JP. Structural and construct validity of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) with an emphasis on pain and functionality after foot surgery: a multicenter study. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2021;61(4):872-878. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2021.12.011
Google Scholar
61.
Borloz S, Crevoisier X, Deriaz O, Ballabeni P, Martin RL, Luthi F. Evidence for validity and reliability of a French version of the FAAM. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12(1):40. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-12-40
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
62.
Nauck T, Lohrer H. Translation, cross-cultural adaption and validation of the German version of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure for patients with chronic ankle instability. Br J Sports Med. 2011;45(10):785-790. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2009.067637
Google Scholar
63.
Sartorio F, Vercelli S, Bravini E, et al. [Foot and ankle ability measure: cross-cultural translation and validation of the Italian version of the ADL module (FAAM-I/ADL)]. Med Lav. 2014;105(5):357-365.
Google Scholar
64.
Uematsu D, Suzuki H, Sasaki S, et al. Evidence of validity for the Japanese version of the foot and ankle ability measure. J Athl Train. 2015;50(1):65-70. doi:10.4085/1062-6050-49.3.42
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
65.
Mazaheri M, Salavati M, Negahban H, et al. Reliability and validity of the Persian version of Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) to measure functional limitations in patients with foot and ankle disorders. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010;18(6):755-759. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2010.03.006
Google Scholar
66.
Cervera-Garvi P, Ortega-Avila AB, Morales-Asencio JM, Cervera-Marin JA, Martin RR, Gijon-Nogueron G. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of Spanish version of The Foot and Ankle Ability Measures (FAAM-Sp). J Foot Ankle Res. 2017;10(1):39. doi:10.1186/s13047-017-0221-6
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
67.
Membrilla-Mesa MD, Aranda-Villalobos P, Pozuelo-Calvo R, Cuesta-Vargas AI, Arroyo-Morales M. Foot and ankle ability measure: validación de la versión española de 29 ítems en el área de rehabilitación. Rehabilitación. 2022;56(4):312-319. doi:10.1016/j.rh.2021.09.007
Google Scholar
68.
Arunakul M, Arunakul P, Suesiritumrong C, Angthong C, Chernchujit B. Validity and reliability of Thai version of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) subjective form. J Med Assoc Thai. 2015;98(6):561-567.
Google Scholar
69.
Anaforoglu Kulunkoglu B, Celik D. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of Foot and Ankle Ability Measure for patients with chronic ankle disability. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2019;58(1):38-41. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2018.07.007
Google Scholar
70.
Çelik D, Malkoç M, Martin R. Evidence for reliability, validity and responsiveness of Turkish Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM). Rheumatol Int. 2016;36(10):1469-1476. doi:10.1007/s00296-016-3485-4
Google Scholar
71.
Usgu S, Usgu G, Uygur F, Yakut Y. Validity and reliability of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure Turkish version for athletes. Int J Athletic Ther Train. 2019;24(6):263-269. doi:10.1123/ijatt.2017-0095
Google Scholar
72.
Leigheb M, Rava E, Vaiuso D, et al. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validation of the italian version of the Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI). Acta Biomed. 2020;91(4-S):150-166. doi:10.23750/abm.v91i4-S.9544
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
73.
Mendonça LDM, Camelo PRP, Trevisan GCC, Bryk FF, Thorborg K, Oliveira RR. The Brazilian hip and groin outcome score (HAGOS-Br): cross-cultural adaptation and measurement properties. Braz J Phys Ther. 2021;25(6):874-882. doi:10.1016/j.bjpt.2021.10.004
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
74.
Cao S, Cao J, Li S, Wang W, Qian Q, Ding Y. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Simplified Chinese version of Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS) for total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res. 2018;13(1):278. doi:10.1186/s13018-018-0971-2
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
75.
Thomeé R, Jonasson P, Thorborg K, et al. Validation of the copenhagen hip groin outcome score (HAGOS) for pain, symptoms and physical function in patients with hip/groin disability. Physiotherapy. 2015;101:e1514-e1515. doi:10.1016/j.physio.2015.03.1498
Google Scholar
76.
Christensen KB, Clausen MB, King E, et al. Validation of the Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS) using modern test theory across different cultures and languages: a cross-sectional study of 452 male athletes with groin pain. Br J Sports Med. 2021;56(6):333-339. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2021-104412
Google Scholar
77.
Brans E, de Graaf JS, Munzebrock AVE, Bessem B, Reininga IHF. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Dutch version of the Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS-NL). PLoS ONE. 2016;11(1):e0148119. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148119
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
78.
Giezen H, Stevens M, van den Akker-Scheek I, Reininga IHF. Validity and reliability of the Dutch version of the Copenhagen Hip And Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS-NL) in patients with hip pathology. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(10):e0186064. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0186064
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
79.
Tak I, Tijssen M, Schamp T, et al. The Dutch Hip and Groin Outcome Score: Cross-cultural adaptation and validation according to the COSMIN Checklist. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2018;48(4):299-306. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7883
Google Scholar
80.
Negrau AE, Roccia L, Romanini E, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the italian version of the Copenhagen hip and groin outcome score. Minerva Ortopedica e Traumatologica. 2020;71(3):98-103. doi:10.23736/s0394-3410.20.03973-9
Google Scholar
81.
Thomeé R, Jónasson P, Thorborg K, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation to Swedish and validation of the Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS) for pain, symptoms and physical function in patients with hip and groin disability due to femoro-acetabular impingement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22(4):835-842. doi:10.1007/s00167-013-2721-7
Google Scholar
82.
Wei X, Wang Z, Yang C, et al. Development of a simplified Chinese version of the hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS): Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage. 2012;20(12):1563-1567. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2012.08.018
Google Scholar
83.
de Groot IB, Reijman M, Terwee CB, et al. Validation of the Dutch version of the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2007;15(1):104-109. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2006.06.014
Google Scholar
84.
Ornetti P, Parratte S, Gossec L, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the French version of the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) in hip osteoarthritis patients. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010;18(4):522-529. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2009.12.007
Google Scholar
85.
Blasimann A, Dauphinee SW, Staal JB. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and psychometric properties of the German version of the hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014;44(12):989-997. doi:10.2519/jospt.2014.4994
Google Scholar
86.
Arbab D, van Ochten JHM, Schnurr C, Bouillon B, König D. Assessment of reliability, validity, responsiveness and minimally important change of the German Hip dysfunction and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS) in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip. Rheumatol Int. 2017;37(12):2005-2011. doi:10.1007/s00296-017-3834-y
Google Scholar
87.
Torre M, Luzi I, Mirabella F, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Italian version of the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):115. doi:10.1186/s12955-018-0935-6
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
88.
Satoh M, Masuhara K, Goldhahn S, Kawaguchi T. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation reliability, validity of the Japanese version of the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) in patients with hip osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013;21(4):570-573. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2013.01.015
Google Scholar
89.
Lee YK, Chung CY, Koo KH, et al. Transcultural adaptation and testing of psychometric properties of the Korean version of the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS). Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2011;19(7):853-857. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2011.02.012
Google Scholar
90.
Mousavian A, Kachooie A, Birjandinejad A, Khoshsaligheh M, Ebrahimzadeh M. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Score into Persian language: reassessment of validity and reliability. Int J Prev Med. 2018;9(1):23. doi:10.4103/ijpvm.ijpvm_359_16
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
91.
Glinkowski W, Żukowska A, Dymitrowicz M, Wołyniec E, Glinkowska B, Kozioł-Kaczorek D. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and psychometric properties of the Polish version of the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS). Medicina. 2019;55(10):614. doi:10.3390/medicina55100614
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
92.
Gojło MK, Paradowski PT. Polish adaptation and validation of the hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS) in osteoarthritis patients undergoing total hip replacement. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1):135. doi:10.1186/s12955-020-01390-4
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
93.
Cavalheiro LM, Gonçalves RS, Martins E, Pires J, Ferreira PL. Validity and reliability of the Portuguese version of the hip dysfunction and osteoarthritis outcome score-physical function short form (HOOS-PS). Qual Life Res. 2016;25(S1):137. doi:10.1007/s11136-016-1390-7
Google Scholar
94.
Machado RK, Casagrande AA, Pereira GR, Vissoci JRN, Pietrobon R, Ferreira APB. Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS): a cross-cultural validation of the Brazilian Portuguese version study. Rev Bras Ortop. 2019;54(3):282-287. doi:10.1055/s-0039-1691764
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
95.
Haragus H, Deleanu B, Prejbeanu R, Timar B, Levai C, Vermesan D. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Romanian Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for joint replacement. Int J Qual Health Care. 2019;31(4):307-311. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzy156
Google Scholar
96.
Trathitiphan W, Paholpak P, Sirichativapee W, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the reliability of the Thai version of the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS). Rheumatol Int. 2016;36(10):1455-1458. doi:10.1007/s00296-016-3505-4
Google Scholar
97.
Yilmaz O, Gul ED, Bodur H. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Turkish version of the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score–Physical function Short-form (HOOS-PS). Rheumatol Int. 2014;34(1):43-49. doi:10.1007/s00296-013-2854-5
Google Scholar
98.
Costa RMP, Cardinot TM, Mathias L, Leporace G, de Oliveira LP. Validation of the Brazilian version of the Hip Outcome Score (HOS) questionnaire. Adv Rheumatol. 2018;58(1):4. doi:10.1186/s42358-018-0007-y
Google Scholar
99.
Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Miozzari HH, Mannion AF, Leunig M. The German Hip Outcome Score: validation in patients undergoing surgical treatment for femoroacetabular impingement. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(3):339-345. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2010.07.021
Google Scholar
100.
Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Von Eisenhart-Rothe R, Mannion AF, Leunig M. Reproducibility, validity, and responsiveness of the hip outcome score in patients with end-stage hip osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 2012;64(11):1770-1775. doi:10.1002/acr.21746
Google Scholar
101.
Lee YK, Ha YC, Martin RL, Hwang DS, Koo KH. Transcultural adaptation of the Korean version of the Hip Outcome Score. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(11):3426-3431. doi:10.1007/s00167-014-2946-0
Google Scholar
102.
de Oliveira LP, Moura Cardinot T, Nunes Carreras Del Castillo L, Cavalheiro Queiroz M, Cavalli Polesello G. Translation and cultural adaptation of the Hip Outcome Score to the Portuguese language. Rev Bras Ortop. 2014;49(3):297-304. doi:10.1016/j.rboe.2014.03.011
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
103.
Haragus H, Prejbeanu R, Poenaru DV, Deleanu B, Timar B, Vermesan D. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of a patient-reported hip outcome score. Int Orthop. 2018;42(5):1001-1006. doi:10.1007/s00264-017-3742-5
Google Scholar
104.
Seijas R, Sallent A, Ruiz-Ibán M, et al. Validation of the Spanish version of the Hip Outcome Score: a multicenter study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):70. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-12-70
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
105.
Polat G, Çelik D, Çil H, Erdil M, Aşık M. Evidence for reliability, validity and responsiveness of Turkish version of Hip Outcome Score. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2017;51(4):319-324. doi:10.1016/j.aott.2017.05.001
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
106.
Stevens M, van den Akker-Scheek I, ten Have B, Adema M, Giezen H, Reininga IHF. Validity and reliability of the Dutch version of the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12NL) in patients with disorders of the hip. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2015;45(12):1026-1034. doi:10.2519/jospt.2015.6178
Google Scholar
107.
Dion MO, Simonyan D, Faure PA, et al. Validation of the French version of the self-administered International Hip Outcome Tool-12 questionnaire and determination of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the French speaking population. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2021;107(8):103083. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2021.103083
Google Scholar
108.
Baumann F, Popp D, Müller K, et al. Validation of a German version of the International Hip Outcome Tool 12 (iHOT12) according to the COSMIN checklist. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14(1):3. doi:10.1186/s12955-016-0407-9
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
109.
Stasi S, Stamou M, Papathanasiou G, et al. International Hip Outcome Tool (12-items) as health-related quality-of-life measure in osteoarthritis: validation of Greek version. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2020;4(1):41. doi:10.1186/s41687-020-00207-8
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
110.
Watanabe N, Murakami S, Uchida S, et al. Exploring the validation of a Japanese version of the International Hip Outcome Tool 12: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Orthop Sci. 2019;24(4):652-657. doi:10.1016/j.jos.2018.12.014
Google Scholar
111.
Jónasson P, Baranto A, Karlsson J, et al. A standardised outcome measure of pain, symptoms and physical function in patients with hip and groin disability due to femoro-acetabular impingement: cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the international Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT12) in Swedish. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22(4):826-834. doi:10.1007/s00167-013-2710-x
Google Scholar
112.
Atilla H, Akdogan M. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Turkish version of the International Hip Outcome Tool - 12. Sisli Etfal Hastan Tip Bul. 2020;54(4):483-489. doi:10.14744/semb.2020.33558
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
113.
Li DH, Wang W, Li X, et al. Development of a valid Simplified Chinese version of the International Hip Outcome Tool (SC-iHOT-33) in young patients having total hip arthroplasty. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2017;25(1):94-98. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2016.08.013
Google Scholar
114.
Tijssen M, Tak I, Stubbe J, et al. Translation, Cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of the Dutch International Hip Outcome Tool-33 (iHOT-33 NL) in young, physically active individuals with symptomatic hip joint pathology. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2018;48(4):289-298. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7610
Google Scholar
115.
Dion MO, Faure PA, May O, et al. Validation of the French version of the self-administered international hip outcome tool-33 questionnaire. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2021;107(3):102858. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2021.102858
Google Scholar
116.
Baumann F, Weber J, Zeman F, et al. Validation of a German version of the International Hip Outcome Tool (G-iHOT33) according to the COSMIN checklist: how much improvement is clinically relevant? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016;136(1):83-91. doi:10.1007/s00402-015-2336-1
Google Scholar
117.
Ruiz-Ibán MA, Seijas R, Sallent A, et al. The international Hip Outcome Tool-33 (iHOT-33): multicenter validation and translation to Spanish. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13(1):62. doi:10.1186/s12955-015-0255-z
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
118.
Lertwanich P, Loog-In S, Pornrattanamaneewong C, Ganokroj P. Validity and reliability of the Thai version of the International Hip Outcome Tool in young to middle-aged physically active adults with hip disorders. Orthop J Sports Med. 2021;9(9):232596712110420. doi:10.1177/23259671211042017
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
119.
Almangoush A, Herrington L, Attia I, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, internal consistency and validation of the Arabic version of the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) for Egyptian people with knee injuries. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013;21(12):1855-1864. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2013.09.010
Google Scholar
120.
Alfadhel SA, Vennu V, Alnahdi AH, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Saudi Arabic version of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). Rheumatol Int. 2018;38(8):1547-1555. doi:10.1007/s00296-018-4072-7
Google Scholar
121.
Alzhrani M. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Patellofemoral Questionnaire: psychometric properties among females of kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(10):6058. doi:10.3390/ijerph19106058
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
122.
Ateef M. Measurement properties of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Patello-Femoral questionnaire in Saudi Arabians. PeerJ. 2020;8:e9323. doi:10.7717/peerj.9323
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
123.
Xie F, Li SC, Roos EM, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of Singapore English and Chinese versions of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in Asians with knee osteoarthritis in Singapore. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2006;14(11):1098-1103. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2006.05.005
Google Scholar
124.
Cheung RTH, Ngai SPC, Ho KKW. Chinese adaptation and validation of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Rheumatol Int. 2016;36(10):1449-1454. doi:10.1007/s00296-016-3539-7
Google Scholar
125.
Huang CC, Chen WS, Tsai MW, Wang WTJ. Comparing the Chinese versions of two knee-specific questionnaires (IKDC and KOOS): reliability, validity, and responsiveness. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):238. doi:10.1186/s12955-017-0814-6
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
126.
Cheng ASK, Chan K chun, Chan S yuet, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Hong Kong version of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HK-KOOS) for patients with knee osteoarthritis. Occup Ther Int. 2019;2019:1-9. doi:10.1155/2019/8270637
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
127.
Zhang QH, Du SX, Zheng GZ, et al. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Chinese version of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in patients with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in mainland China. Z Orthop Unfall. 2019;157(01):42-47. doi:10.1055/a-0621-9504
Google Scholar
128.
Krogsgaard MR, Brodersen J, Christensen KB, et al. How to translate and locally adapt a PROM. Assessment of cross-cultural differential item functioning. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2021;31(5):999-1008. doi:10.1111/sms.13854
Google Scholar
129.
de Groot IB, Favejee MM, Reijman M, Verhaar JA, Terwee CB. The Dutch version of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score: a validation study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6(1):16. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-6-16
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
130.
Bekkers JEJ, de Windt ThS, Raijmakers NJH, Dhert WJA, Saris DBF. Validation of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) for the treatment of focal cartilage lesions. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2009;17(11):1434-1439. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2009.04.019
Google Scholar
131.
van de Graaf VA, Wolterbeek N, Scholtes VAB, Mutsaerts ELAR, Poolman RW. Reliability and validity of the IKDC, KOOS, and WOMAC for patients with meniscal injuries. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(6):1408-1416. doi:10.1177/0363546514524698
Google Scholar
132.
Multanen J, Honkanen M, Häkkinen A, Kiviranta I. Construct validity and reliability of the Finnish version of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018;19(1):155. doi:10.1186/s12891-018-2078-7
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
133.
Ornetti P, Parratte S, Gossec L, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the French version of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in knee osteoarthritis patients. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008;16(4):423-428. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2007.08.007
Google Scholar
134.
Ornetti P, Perruccio AV, Roos EM, Lohmander LS, Davis AM, Maillefert JF. Psychometric properties of the French translation of the reduced KOOS and HOOS (KOOS-PS and HOOS-PS). Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2009;17(12):1604-1608. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2009.06.007
Google Scholar
135.
Villanueva-Misa AMA, Penserga EG. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Filipino translation of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score in Filipinos with knee osteoarthritis at a tertiary Hospital. Acta Med Philipp. 2022;56(2):13-20. doi:10.47895/amp.v56i2.1789
Google Scholar
136.
Kessler S, Lang S, Puhl W, Stöve J. Der Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score--ein Funktionsfragebogen zur Outcome-Messung in der Knieendoprothetik [The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score--a multifunctional questionnaire to measure outcome in knee arthroplasty]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2003;141(03):277-282. doi:10.1055/s-2003-40083
Google Scholar
137.
Moutzouri M, Tsoumpos P, Billis E, Papoutsidakis A, Gliatis J. Cross-cultural translation and validation of the Greek version of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in patients with total knee replacement. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(16):1477-1483. doi:10.3109/09638288.2014.972583
Google Scholar
138.
Jha RK, Sen RK, Tripathy SK, Gopinathan NR, Goyal T, Sharma SK. Cross-cultural validation of Hindi version Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in osteoarthritis knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021;29(6):1742-1749. doi:10.1007/s00167-020-06211-1
Google Scholar
139.
Briem K. KOOS-spurningalistinn til mats á einkennum og færni í hné; réttmæti og áreidanleiki íslenskrar thýdingar [Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Icelandic version of the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS)]. Laeknabladid. 2012;98(7-8):403-407. doi:10.17992/lbl.2012.0708.444
Google Scholar
140.
Ateef M, Kulandaivelan S, Alqahtani M. Cross-cultural validation of Urdu version KOOS in Indian population with primary knee osteoarthritis. Int J Rheumatol. 2017;2017:1-4. doi:10.1155/2017/1206706
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
141.
Phatama KY, Aziz A, Bimadi MH, Oktafandi I, Cendikiawan F, Mustamsir E. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score: validity and reliability of an Indonesian version. Ochsner J. 2021;21(1):63-67. doi:10.31486/toj.20.0088
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
142.
Monticone M, Ferrante S, Salvaderi S, et al. Development of the Italian version of the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score for patients with knee injuries: cross-cultural adaptation, dimensionality, reliability, and validity. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2012;20(4):330-335. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2012.01.001
Google Scholar
143.
Franchignoni F, Salaffi F, Giordano A, Carotti M, Ciapetti A, Ottonello M. Rasch analysis of the 22 knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score-physical function items in italian patients with knee osteoarthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(3):480-487. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2012.09.028
Google Scholar
144.
Nakamura N, Takeuchi R, Ishikawa H, Saito T, Sawaguchi T, Goldhahn S. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Japanese Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). J Orthop Sci. 2011;16(5):516-523. doi:10.1007/s00776-011-0112-9
Google Scholar
145.
Oishi K, Tsuda E, Yamamoto Y, et al. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score reflects the severity of knee osteoarthritis better than the revised Knee Society Score in a general Japanese population. Knee. 2016;23(1):35-42. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2015.08.011
Google Scholar
146.
Goldhahn S, Takeuchi R, Nakamura N, Nakamura R, Sawaguchi T. Responsiveness of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) in Japanese patients with high tibial osteotomy. J Orthop Sci. 2017;22(5):862-867. doi:10.1016/j.jos.2017.04.013
Google Scholar
147.
Lyman S, Omori G, Nakamura N, et al. Development and validation of a culturally relevant Japanese KOOS. J Orthop Sci. 2019;24(3):514-520. doi:10.1016/j.jos.2018.11.014
Google Scholar
148.
Zulkifli MM, Kadir AA, Elias A, Bea KC, Sadagatullah AN. Psychometric properties of the Malay language version of Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Questionnaire among knee osteoarthritis patients: a confirmatory factor analysis. Malays Orthop J. 2017;11(2):7-14. doi:10.5704/moj.1707.003
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
149.
Salavati M, Mazaheri M, Negahban H, et al. Validation of a Persian-version of Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in Iranians with knee injuries. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008;16(10):1178-1182. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2008.03.004
Google Scholar
150.
Salavati M, Akhbari B, Mohammadi F, Mazaheri M, Khorrami M. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS); reliability and validity in competitive athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2011;19(4):406-410. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2011.01.010
Google Scholar
151.
Jalaie S, Ebrahimi N, Salsabili N, Ansari N, Naghdi S. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score in patients with isolated meniscus injury; validity and reliability. J Res Med Sci. 2017;22(1):55. doi:10.4103/jrms.jrms_941_16
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
152.
Ataeian M, Shafizadegan Z, Rahnemai-Azar AA, Irrgang JJ, Rezaeian ZS. Development of the Persian version of Knee Outcome Survey Activities for Daily Living Scale. Iran J Med Sci. 2020;45(6):434-443. doi:10.30476/ijms.2019.72487
Google Scholar
153.
Mostafaee N, Negahban H, Shaterzadeh Yazdi MJ, Goharpey S, Mehravar M, Pirayeh N. Responsiveness of a Persian version of Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and Tegner activity scale in athletes with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction following physiotherapy treatment. Physiother Theory Pract. 2020;36(9):1019-1026. doi:10.1080/09593985.2018.1548672
Google Scholar
154.
Mostafaee N, Nourollahi F, Mostamand J, Negahban H. Responsiveness and the minimal important change of Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score in Persian patients with knee osteoarthritis following physiotherapy intervention. Physiother Theory Pract. 2021;38(12):1-10. doi:10.1080/09593985.2021.1926021
Google Scholar
155.
Paradowski PT, Witoński D, Kęska R, Roos EM. Cross-cultural translation and measurement properties of the Polish version of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11(1):107. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-11-107
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
156.
Paradowski PT, Kęska R, Witoński D. Validation of the Polish version of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in patients with osteoarthritis undergoing total knee replacement. BMJ Open. 2015;5(7):e006947. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006947
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
157.
Gonçalves RS, Cabri J, Pinheiro JP, Ferreira PL. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Portuguese version of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2009;17(9):1156-1162. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2009.01.009
Google Scholar
158.
Almeida GPL, da Costa RMO, Albano TR, Tavares MLA, Marques AP. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validation and responsiveness in the Brazilian Portuguese version of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS-BR). Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022;30(10):3343-3349. doi:10.1007/s00167-022-06911-w
Google Scholar
159.
Gonçalves RS, Cabri J, Pinheiro JP, Ferreira PL, Gil J. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Portuguese version of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score – Physical Function Short-form (KOOS-PS). Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010;18(3):372-376. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2009.10.012
Google Scholar
160.
Vaquero J, Longo UG, Forriol F, Martinelli N, Vethencourt R, Denaro V. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Spanish version of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in patients with chondral lesion of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22(1):104-108. doi:10.1007/s00167-012-2290-1
Google Scholar
161.
Lizaur-Utilla A, Miralles-Muñoz FA, Gonzalez-Parreño S, Lopez-Prats FA. Validation of the Spanish version of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) for elderly patients with total knee replacement. J Orthop Res. 2019;37(10):2157-2162. doi:10.1002/jor.24386
Google Scholar
162.
Martinez-Cano JP, Vernaza-Obando D, Chica J, Castro AM. Cross-cultural translation and validation of the Spanish version of the patellofemoral pain and osteoarthritis subscale of the KOOS (KOOS-PF). BMC Res Notes. 2021;14(1):220. doi:10.1186/s13104-021-05619-3
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
163.
Gul ED, Yilmaz O, Bodur H. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score-physical function short-form (KOOS-PS). J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2013;26(4):461-466. doi:10.3233/bmr-130406
Google Scholar
164.
Yilmaz Tasdelen O, Utkan A, Ceritoglu KU, Ozalp Ates FS, Bodur H. Responsiveness of the Turkish KOOS-PS and HOOS-PS in knee and hip joint arthroplasty patients. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2020;33(6):977-981. doi:10.3233/bmr-181420
Google Scholar
165.
Fatima S, Arslan SA, Sharif F, Ahmad A, Gillani SA, Zaheer A. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the Urdu version of knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score questionnaire for Pakistani population. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22(1):592. doi:10.1186/s12891-021-04477-1
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
166.
Algarni AD, Alrabai HM, Al-Ahaideb A, Kachanathu SJ, AlShammari SA. Arabic translation, cultural adaptation, and validation study of Knee Outcome Survey: Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADLS). Rheumatol Int. 2017;37(9):1585-1589. doi:10.1007/s00296-017-3776-4
Google Scholar
167.
Bouzubar FF, Aljadi SH, Alotaibi NM, Irrgang JJ. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Arabic version of the knee outcome survey-activities for daily living scale. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40(15):1817-1828. doi:10.1080/09638288.2017.1313319
Google Scholar
168.
Jia ZY, Wang W, Nian XW, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the simplified Chinese version of the Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(10):2009-2016. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2016.01.068
Google Scholar
169.
Roy JS, Esculier JF, Maltais DB. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the French version of the Knee Outcome Survey–Activities of Daily Living Scale. Clin Rehabil. 2014;28(6):614-623. doi:10.1177/0269215513511342
Google Scholar
170.
Bizzini M, Gorelick M. Development of a German version of the knee outcome survey for daily activities. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2007;127(9):781-789. doi:10.1007/s00402-006-0200-z
Google Scholar
171.
Kapreli E, Panelli G, Strimpakos N, Billis E, Zacharopoulos A, Athanasopoulos S. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Greek version of the Knee Outcome Survey – activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADLS). Knee. 2011;18(6):424-427. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2010.09.001
Google Scholar
172.
Szczepanik M, Bejer A, Snela S, Szymczyk D, Jabłoński J, Majewska J. Polish Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADLS) in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Med Sci Monit. 2018;24:5309-5319. doi:10.12659/msm.908094
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
173.
Gonçalves RS, Cabri J, Pinheiro JP. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Portuguese version of the Knee Outcome Survey-Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADLS). Clin Rheumatol. 2008;27(11):1445-1449. doi:10.1007/s10067-008-0996-8
Google Scholar
174.
Evcik D, Ay S, Ege A, Turel A, Kavuncu V. Adaptation and validation of Turkish version of the Knee Outcome Survey-Activities for Daily Living Scale. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(8):2077-2082. doi:10.1007/s11999-009-0826-6
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
175.
Ruiz-Muñoz M, González-Sánchez M, Li GZ, Cuesta-Vargas AI. Manchester–Oxford Foot Questionnaire Chinese version (MOXFQ-Ch): a validity and cross-cultural adaptation. Disabil Rehabil. 2021;43(1):104-111. doi:10.1080/09638288.2019.1616834
Google Scholar
176.
Venkatesan S, Schotanus MGM, Hendrickx RPM. Dutch translation of the Manchester–Oxford Foot Questionnaire: reassessment of reliability and validity. article. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2016;55(6):1199-1201. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2016.07.015
Google Scholar
177.
Ponkilainen VT, Miettinen M, Sandelin H, et al. Structural validity of the Finnish Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) using the Rasch model. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2021;27(1):93-100. doi:10.1016/j.fas.2020.02.012
Google Scholar
178.
Vieira Cardoso D, Dubois-Ferrière V, Hannouche D, Lübbeke A, Perneger T. Development and psychometric performance of the French language version of the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ). J Foot Ankle Surg. 2020;26(8):902-906. doi:10.1016/j.fas.2019.12.002
Google Scholar
179.
Arbab D, Kuhlmann K, Ringendahl H, Bouillon B, Eysel P, König D. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the German Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) in patients with foot or ankle surgery. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2018;24(6):481-485. doi:10.1016/j.fas.2017.05.007
Google Scholar
180.
Arbab D, Kuhlmann K, Schnurr C, Lüring C, König D, Bouillon B. Comparison of the Manchester–Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) and the Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (SEFAS) in patients with foot or ankle surgery. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2019;25(3):361-365. doi:10.1016/j.fas.2018.01.003
Google Scholar
181.
Marinozzi A, Martinelli N, Panascì M, et al. Italian translation of the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire, with re-assessment of reliability and validity. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(7):923-927. doi:10.1007/s11136-009-9508-9
Google Scholar
182.
Park MJ, Ko YC, Huh JW, Park SH, Park T hong, Park J hyung. Validation of the Korean version of the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire in patients with hallux valgus. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2017;56(2):252-254. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2016.11.013
Google Scholar
183.
Mousavian A, Ebrahimzadeh MH, Birjandinejad A, Omidi-Kashani F, Kachooei AR. Translation and cultural adaptation of the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) into Persian language. Foot. 2015;25(4):224-227. doi:10.1016/j.foot.2015.07.004
Google Scholar
184.
Goldhahn S, Garces JBG, Winson I, Sands AK. Psychometric validation of the Spanish Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) in patients with foot or ankle surgery. conference abstract. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(1):121. doi:10.1007/s11136-015-1078-4
Google Scholar
185.
Garcés JBG, Winson I, Goldhahn S, et al. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Spanish Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) in patients with foot or ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Surg. 2016;22(1):59-70. doi:10.1016/j.fas.2015.09.004
Google Scholar
186.
Talu B, Bayramlar K, Bek N, Yakut Y. Reliabilty and validity study of manchester-oxford foot questionnaire (MOXFQ) in the evaluation of hallux valgus deformity. Fizyoterapi Rehabilitasyon. 2010;21(3):242.
Google Scholar
187.
Talu B, Bayramlar K, Bek N, Yakut Y. Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire for hallux valgus deformity evaluation. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2016;50(2):207-213. doi:10.3944/aott.2015.15.0152
Google Scholar
188.
Del Castillo LNC, Leporace G, Cardinot TM, Levy RA, de Oliveira LP. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Brazilian version of the Nonarthritic Hip Score. Sao Paulo Med J. 2013;131(4):244-251. doi:10.1590/1516-3180.2013.1314487
Google Scholar
189.
Kanik ZH, Sozlu U, Olmez SB, Basar S, Kanatli U. Cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of the Turkish version of the Nonarthritic Hip Score. AOTT. 2020;54(4):414-422. doi:10.5152/j.aott.2020.19177
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
190.
Zheng W, Li J, Zhao J, Liu D, Xu W. Development of a valid simplified Chinese version of the Oxford Hip Score in patients with hip osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(5):1545-1551. doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3403-y
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
191.
Paulsen A, Odgaard A, Overgaard S. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Danish version of the Oxford hip score: assessed against generic and disease-specific questionnaires. Bone Joint Res. 2012;1(9):225-233. doi:10.1302/2046-3758.19.2000076
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
192.
Holmenlund C, Overgaard S, Bilberg R, Varnum C. Evaluation of the Oxford Hip Score: does it still have content validity? Interviews of total hip arthroplasty patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2021;19(1):237. doi:10.1186/s12955-021-01869-8
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
193.
Gosens T, Hoefnagels NHM, de Vet RCW, et al. The “Oxford Heup Score”: the translation and validation of a questionnaire into Dutch to evaluate the results of total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2005;76(2):204-211. doi:10.1080/00016470510030580
Google Scholar
194.
Delaunay C, Epinette JA, Dawson J, Murray D, Jolles BM. Cross-cultural adaptations of the Oxford-12 HIP score to the French speaking population. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2009;95(2):89-99. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2009.01.003
Google Scholar
195.
Naal FD, Sieverding M, Impellizzeri FM, von Knoch F, Mannion AF, Leunig M. Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted German Oxford hip score. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(4):952-957. doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0457-3
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
196.
Impellizzeri F, Mannion AF, Naal FD, Leunig M. Validity, reproducibility and responsiveness of the Oxford hip score in patients with femoroacetabular impingement. Swiss Medical Weekly. 2013;143:27S-28S.
Google Scholar
197.
Impellizzeri FM, Mannion AF, Naal FD, Leunig M. Validity, reproducibility, and responsiveness of the oxford hip score in patients undergoing surgery for femoroacetabular impingement. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(1):42-50. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2014.07.022
Google Scholar
198.
Silitonga J, Djaja YP, Dilogo IH, Pontoh LAP. Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the Indonesian version of the Oxford Hip Score. Bone Jt Open. 2021;2(9):765-772. doi:10.1302/2633-1462.29.bjo-2021-0111.r1
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
199.
Martinelli N, Longo UG, Marinozzi A, Franceschetti E, Costa V, Denaro V. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation with reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Italian version of the Oxford Hip Score in patients with hip osteoarthritis. Qual Life Res. 2011;20(6):923-929. doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9811-5
Google Scholar
200.
Uesugi Y, Makimoto K, Fujita K, Nishii T, Sakai T, Sugano N. Validity and responsiveness of the Oxford hip score in a prospective study with Japanese total hip arthroplasty patients. J Orthop Sci. 2009;14(1):35-39. doi:10.1007/s00776-008-1292-9
Google Scholar
201.
Lee YK, Chung CY, Park MS, et al. Transcultural adaptation and testing of psychometric properties of the Korean version of the Oxford hip score. J Orthop Sci. 2012;17(4):377-381. doi:10.1007/s00776-012-0230-z
Google Scholar
202.
Nourbakhsh M, Zarezadeh A, Shemshaki H, Etemadifar MR, Moezi M, Mazoochian F. Translation and cultural adaptation of the oxford hip score for Iranian population. Int J Prev Med. 2013;4(2):141-145.
Google Scholar
203.
Paulsen A. Patient reported outcomes in hip arthroplasty registries. Dan Med J. 2014;61(5):B4845.
Google Scholar
204.
Martín-Fernández J, Gray-Laymón P, Molina-Siguero A, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Spanish version of the Oxford Hip Score in patients with hip osteoarthritis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18(1):205. doi:10.1186/s12891-017-1568-3
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
205.
Martín-Fernández J, Morey-Montalvo M, Tomás-García N, et al. Mapping analysis to predict EQ-5D-5 L utility values based on the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and Oxford Knee Score (OKS) questionnaires in the Spanish population suffering from lower limb osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1). doi:10.1186/s12955-020-01435-8
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
206.
Tuğay BU, Tuğay N, Güney H, Hazar Z, Yüksel İ, Atilla B. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Turkish version of Oxford hip score. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015;135(6):879-889. doi:10.1007/s00402-015-2215-9
Google Scholar
207.
Alghadir AH, Al-Eisa ES, Anwer S. Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric analysis of the Arabic version of the oxford knee score in adult male with knee osteoarthritis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18(1):190. doi:10.1186/s12891-017-1552-y
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
208.
Ahmed KM, Said HG, Ramadan EKA, Abd El-Radi M, El-Assal MA. Arabic translation and validation of three knee scores, Lysholm Knee Score (LKS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), and International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC). SICOT-J. 2019;5:6. doi:10.1051/sicotj/2018054
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
209.
Bin Sheeha B, Williams A, Johnson DS, Granat M, Bin Nasser A, Jones R. Responsiveness, reliability, and validity of Arabic version of Oxford Knee Score for total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020;102(15):e89. doi:10.2106/jbjs.19.00949
Google Scholar
210.
Xie F, Li SC, Lo NN, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of Singapore English and Chinese versions of the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) in knee osteoarthritis patients undergoing total knee replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2007;15(9):1019-1024. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2007.02.013
Google Scholar
211.
Xie F, Ye H, Zhang Y, Liu X, Lei T, Li SC. Extension from inpatients to outpatients: validity and reliability of the Oxford Knee Score in measuring health outcomes in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Int J Rheum Dis. 2011;14(2):206-210. doi:10.1111/j.1756-185x.2010.01580.x
Google Scholar
212.
Cheung RTH, Ngai SPC, Ho KKW. Chinese translation and validation of the Oxford Knee Scale for patients with knee osteoarthritis. Hong Kong Physiother J. 2017;37:46-49. doi:10.1016/j.hkpj.2017.03.002
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
213.
Lin K, Bao L, Wang J, Fujita K, Makimoto K, Liao X. Validation of the Chinese (Mandarin) version of the Oxford Knee Score in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(12):2992-3004. doi:10.1007/s11999-017-5495-2
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
214.
Liebs TR. CORR Insights®: Validation of the Chinese (Mandarin) version of the Oxford Knee Score in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018;476(3):612-614. doi:10.1007/s11999.0000000000000157
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
215.
Chen C, Wang W, Wu H, et al. Cross-cultural translation and validation of the Chinese Oxford Knee Score and the Activity and Participation Questionnaire. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2020;28(2):230949902091066. doi:10.1177/2309499020910668
Google Scholar
216.
Ngwayi JRM, Tan J, Liang N, Porter DE. Reliability and validity of 3 different Chinese versions of the Oxford knee score (OKS). Arthroplasty. 2020;2(1). doi:10.1186/s42836-020-00049-1
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
217.
Deng W, Shao H, Zhou Y, Li H, Wang Z, Huang Y. Reliability and validity of commonly used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2021;108(8):103096. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2021.103096
Google Scholar
218.
Liu XL, Huang YY, Wang T, et al. Psychometric assessment of the Chinese version of the Oxford Knee Score in breast cancer survivors experiencing hormone treatment-related knee dysfunction. Asia-Pacific J Oncol Nurs. 2022;9(3):135-142. doi:10.1016/j.apjon.2022.01.001
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
219.
Haverkamp D, Breugem SJM, Sierevelt IN, Blankevoort L, van Dijk CN. Translation and validation of the Dutch version of the Oxford 12-item knee questionnaire for knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2005;76(3):347-352. doi:10.1080/00016470510030814
Google Scholar
220.
Raukas M, Metsna V, Tammaru M. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Estonian version of the Oxford Knee Score. Acta Orthopaed Traumatol Turc. 2022;56(1):54-58. doi:10.5152/j.aott.2022.21229
Google Scholar
221.
Reito A, Järvistö A, Jämsen E, et al. Translation and validation of the 12-item Oxford knee score for use in Finland. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18(1):74. doi:10.1186/s12891-017-1405-8
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
222.
Jenny JY, Diesinger Y. Validation of a French version of the Oxford knee questionnaire. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011;97(3):267-271. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2010.07.009
Google Scholar
223.
Jenny JY, Diesinger Y. The Oxford Knee Score: compared performance before and after knee replacement. OrthopTraumatol Surg Res. 2012;98(4):409-412. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2012.03.004
Google Scholar
224.
Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Sieverding M, et al. The 12-item Oxford Knee Score: cross-cultural adaptation into German and assessment of its psychometric properties in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2009;17(1):49-52. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2008.05.017
Google Scholar
225.
Impellizzeri FM, Mannion AF, Leunig M, Bizzini M, Naal FD. Comparison of the reliability, responsiveness, and construct validity of 4 different questionnaires for evaluating outcomes after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(6):861-869. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2010.07.027
Google Scholar
226.
Strimpakos N, Dapka F, Papachristou A, Kapreli E. The 12-item oxford knee score: cross-cultural adaptation into greek and assessment of its psychometric properties. Physiotherapy. 2015;101:e1445-e1446. doi:10.1016/j.physio.2015.03.1408
Google Scholar
227.
Takeuchi R, Sawaguchi T, Nakamura N, Ishikawa H, Saito T, Goldhahn S. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Oxford 12-item knee score in Japanese. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011;131(2):247-254. doi:10.1007/s00402-010-1185-1
Google Scholar
228.
Eun IS, Kim OG, Kim CK, Lee HS, Lee JS. Validation of the Korean version of the Oxford Knee Score in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(2):600-605. doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2564-4
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
229.
Ebrahimzadeh MH, Makhmalbaf H, Birjandinejad A, Soltani-Moghaddas SH. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the persian version of the oxford knee score in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Iran J Med Sci. 2014;39(6):529-535.
Google Scholar
230.
Gonçalves RS, Tomás AM, Martins DI. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Portuguese version of the Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Knee. 2012;19(4):344-347. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2011.04.006
Google Scholar
231.
Paravlic AH, Pisot S, Mitic P, Pisot R. Validation of the Oxford Knee Score and Lower Extremity Functional Score questionnaires for use in Slovenia. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2020;140(10):1515-1522. doi:10.1007/s00402-020-03498-0
Google Scholar
232.
Martín-Fernández J, García-Maroto R, Sánchez-Jiménez FJ, et al. Validation of the Spanish version of the Oxford knee score and assessment of its utility to characterize quality of life of patients suffering from knee osteoarthritis: a multicentric study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):186. doi:10.1186/s12955-017-0761-2
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
233.
Charoencholvanich K, Pongcharoen B. Oxford knee score and SF-36: translation & reliability for use with total knee arthroscopy patients in Thailand. J Med Assoc Thai. 2005;88(9):1194-1202.
Google Scholar
234.
Umut Tuʇay B, Tuʇay N, Güney H, Yüksel I, Atilla B. Oxford Knee Score: cross-cultural adaptation, validation and reliability of the Turkish version in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Fizyoterapi Rehabilitasyon. 2010;21(3):192.
Google Scholar
235.
Erichsen JL, Jensen C, Larsen MS, Damborg F, Viberg B. Danish translation and validation of the self-reported foot and ankle score (SEFAS) in patients with ankle related fractures. Foot Ankle Surg. 2021;27(5):521-527. doi:10.1016/j.fas.2020.06.014
Google Scholar
236.
Arbab D, Kuhlmann K, Schnurr C, Bouillon B, Lüring C, König D. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the German self-reported foot and ankle score (SEFAS) in patients with foot or ankle surgery. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18(1):409. doi:10.1186/s12891-017-1772-1
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
237.
Ortega-Avila AB, Cervera-Garvi P, Morales-Asencio JM, et al. Transcultural adaptation and validation of the Spanish-French versions of the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS). Disabil Rehabil. 2020;44(12):2896-2901. doi:10.1080/09638288.2020.1849428
Google Scholar
238.
Cöster M, Karlsson MK, Nilsson JÅ, Carlsson Å. Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of a self-reported foot and ankle score (SEFAS). Acta Orthop. 2012;83(2):197-203. doi:10.3109/17453674.2012.657579
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
239.
Cöster MC, Bremander A, Rosengren BE, Magnusson H, Carlsson Å, Karlsson MK. Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS) in forefoot, hindfoot, and ankle disorders. Acta Orthop. 2014;85(2):187-194. doi:10.3109/17453674.2014.889979
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
240.
Cöster M, Rosengren B, Carlsson Å, Montgomery F, Karlsson M. Patientrapporterade SEFAS:--Frågeformulär bra utvärderingsmetod vid fot- och fotledsbesvär [Patient-reported SEFAS: Questionnaire good evaluation method in foot and ankle disorders]. Lakartidningen. 2015;112.
Google Scholar
241.
Cöster MC, Nilsdotter A, Brudin L, Bremander A. Minimally important change, measurement error, and responsiveness for the Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score. Acta Orthopaedica. 2017;88(3):300-304. doi:10.1080/17453674.2017.1293445
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
242.
Cöster MC, Rosengren BE, Karlsson MK, Carlsson Å. Age- and gender-specific normative values for the Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS). Foot Ankle Int. 2018;39(11):1328-1334. doi:10.1177/1071100718788499
Google Scholar
243.
Harnirattisai T, Johnson RA, Kawinwonggowit V. Evaluating functional activity in older Thai adults. Rehabil Nurs. 2006;31(3):124-128. doi:10.1002/j.2048-7940.2006.tb00016.x
Google Scholar
244.
Yazici G, Yazici MV, Bayraktar D, Varol F, Guclu Gunduz A, Bek N. Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the self-reported Foot and Ankle Score in patients with foot or ankle pain. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2020;54(4):408-413. doi:10.5152/j.aott.2020.19185
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
245.
Lee G wan, Yi C hwi, Kim G mo, Lee Y jung, Yoon J whon. Cross-cultural adaptation and clinical evaluation of a Korean version of the Work, Osteoarthritis or joint-Replacement Questionnaire. Int J Ther Rehabil. 2019;26(5):1-8. doi:10.12968/ijtr.2018.0120
Google Scholar
246.
Guermazi M, Poiraudeau S, Yahia M, et al. Translation, adaptation and validation of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) for an Arab population: the Sfax modified WOMAC. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2004;12(6):459-468. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2004.02.006
Google Scholar
247.
Alghadir A, Anwer S, Iqbal ZA, Alsanawi HA. Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Arabic version of the reduced Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Disabil Rehabil. 2016;38(7):689-694. doi:10.3109/09638288.2015.1055380
Google Scholar
248.
Rabbani MG, Haq SA, Bellamy N, et al. Development, linguistic and clinimetric validation of the WOMAC® VA3.01 Bangla for Bangladesh Index. Rheumatol Int. 2015;35(6):997-1003. doi:10.1007/s00296-014-3192-y
Google Scholar
249.
Metsavaht L, Leporace G, de Mello Sposito MM, Riberto M, Batista LA. What is the best questionnaire for monitoring the physical characteristic of patients with knee osteoarthritis in the Brazilian population? Rev Bras Ortop. 2011;46(3):256-261. doi:10.1016/s2255-4971(15)30191-9
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
250.
Ferreira C de SB, Dibai-Filho AV, Almeida DO, et al. Structural validity of the Brazilian version of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index among patients with knee osteoarthritis. Sao Paulo Med J. 2020;138(5):400-406. doi:10.1590/1516-3180.2020.0046.r1.26062020
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
251.
Lage PTS, Machado LAC, Barreto SM, de Figueiredo RC, Telles RW. Measurement properties of Portuguese–Brazil Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) for the assessment of knee complaints in Brazilian adults: ELSA-Brasil Musculoskeletal cohort. Rheumatol Int. 2020;40(2):233-242. doi:10.1007/s00296-019-04496-1
Google Scholar
252.
Xie F, Li SC, Goeree R, et al. Validation of Chinese Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) in patients scheduled for total knee replacement. Qual Life Res. 2008;17(4):595-601. doi:10.1007/s11136-008-9340-7
Google Scholar
253.
Symonds T, Hughes B, Liao S, Ang Q, Bellamy N. Validation of the Chinese Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index in patients from mainland China with osteoarthritis of the knee. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2015;67(11):1553-1560. doi:10.1002/acr.22631
Google Scholar
254.
Tong WW, Wang W, Xu WD. Development of a Chinese version of the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool: cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation. J Orthop Surg Res. 2016;11(1):90. doi:10.1186/s13018-016-0424-8
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
255.
Shen ZD, Yu HM, Wang JT, Shi GY, Sun Y. Modified Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index Scale used in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2019;99(7):537-541. doi:10.3760/cma.j.issn.0376-2491.2019.07.012
Google Scholar
256.
Yang L, Wang D, Li X, Yuan H, Fang H, Guo X. Comparison of the responsiveness of the WOMAC and the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 in patients with Kashin–Beck disease. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21(1):188. doi:10.1186/s12891-020-03210-8
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
257.
Roorda LD, Jones CA, Waltz M, et al. Satisfactory cross cultural equivalence of the Dutch WOMAC in patients with hip osteoarthritis waiting for arthroplasty. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63(1):36-42. doi:10.1136/ard.2002.001784
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
258.
Yang KGA, Raijmakers NJH, Verbout AJ, Dhert WJA, Saris DBF. Validation of the short-form WOMAC function scale for the evaluation of osteoarthritis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89-B(1):50-56. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.89b1.17790
Google Scholar
259.
Burgers PTPW, Poolman RW, Van Bakel TM, et al. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index for elderly patients with a femoral neck fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(9):751-757. doi:10.2106/jbjs.n.00542
Google Scholar
260.
Soininen JV, Paavolainen PO, Gronblad MA, Kaapa EH. Validation study of a Finnish version of the Western Ontario and McMasters University osteoarthritis index. Hip Int. 2008;18(2):108-111. doi:10.5301/hip.2008.1229
Google Scholar
261.
Ponkilainen VT, Häkkinen AH, Uimonen MM, Tukiainen E, Sandelin H, Repo JP. Validation of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index in patients having undergone ankle fracture surgery. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2019;58(6):1100-1107. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2019.01.018
Google Scholar
262.
Ponkilainen VT, Tukiainen EJ, Uimonen MM, Häkkinen AH, Repo JP. Assessment of the structural validity of three foot and ankle specific patient-reported outcome measures. Foot Ankle Surg. 2020;26(2):169-174. doi:10.1016/j.fas.2019.01.009
Google Scholar
263.
Tubach F, Baron G, Falissard B, et al. Using patients’ and rheumatologists’ opinions to specify a short form of the WOMAC function subscale. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64(1):75-79. doi:10.1136/ard.2003.019539
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
264.
Faucher M, Poiraudeau S, Lefevre-Colau MM, Rannou F, Fermanian J, Revel M. Algo-functional assessment of knee osteoarthritis: comparison of the test-retest reliability and construct validity of the WOMAC and Lequesne indexes. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2002;10(8):602-610. doi:10.1053/joca.2002.0533
Google Scholar
265.
Faucher M, Poiraudeau S, Lefevre-Colau MM, Rannou F, Fermanian J, Revel M. Assessment of the test–retest reliability and construct validity of a modified WOMAC index in knee osteoarthritis. Joint Bone Spine. 2004;71(2):121-127. doi:10.1016/s1297-319x(03)00112-x
Google Scholar
266.
Stucki G, Meier D, Stucki S, et al. Evaluation einer deutschen Version des WOMAC (Western Ontario und McMaster Universities) Arthroseindex [Evaluation of a German version of WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) Arthrosis Index]. Z Rheumatol. 1996;55(1):40-49.
Google Scholar
267.
Stucki G, Sangha O, Stucki S, et al. Comparison of the WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) osteoarthritis index and a self-report format of the self-administered Lequesne–Algofunctional index in patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 1998;6(2):79-86. doi:10.1053/joca.1997.0097
Google Scholar
268.
Theiler R, Sangha O, Schaeren S, et al. Superior responsiveness of the pain and function sections of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) as compared to the Lequesne-algofunctional Index in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 1999;7(6):515-519. doi:10.1053/joca.1999.0262
Google Scholar
269.
Theiler R, Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Good M, Bellamy N. Responsiveness of the electronic touch screen WOMAC 3.1 OA Index in a short term clinical trial with rofecoxib. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2004;12(11):912-916. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2004.08.006
Google Scholar
270.
Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Vondechend M, Bellamy N, Theiler R. Validation and patient acceptance of a computer touch screen version of the WOMAC 3.1 osteoarthritis index. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64(1):80-84. doi:10.1136/ard.2003.019307
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
271.
Huber J, Satkauskas I, Theiler R, Zumstein M, Ruflin G. Klinische Resultate 2 Jahre nach Hüfttotalendoprothese (WOMAC/SF-36) und Vergleich mit der Normbevölkerung (SF-36) [Clinical results 2 years after total hip replacement (WOMAC/SF-36) and comparison with the normal population (SF-36)]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2006;144(3):296-300. doi:10.1055/s-2006-933443
Google Scholar
272.
Rothenfluh DA, Reedwisch D, Müller U, Ganz R, Tennant A, Leunig M. Construct validity of a 12-item WOMAC for assessment of femoro-acetabular impingement and osteoarthritis of the hip. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008;16(9):1032-1038. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2008.02.006
Google Scholar
273.
Konstantinidis GA, Aletras VH, Kanakari KA, Natsis K, Bellamy N, Niakas D. Comparative validation of the WOMAC osteoarthritis and Lequesne algofunctional indices in Greek patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(2):539-548. doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0490-x
Google Scholar
274.
Papathanasiou G, Stasi S, Oikonomou L, et al. Clinimetric properties of WOMAC Index in Greek knee osteoarthritis patients: comparisons with both self-reported and physical performance measures. Rheumatol Int. 2015;35(1):115-123. doi:10.1007/s00296-014-3043-x
Google Scholar
275.
Wigler I, Neumann L, Yaron M. Validation study of a Hebrew version of WOMAC in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Clin Rheumatol. 1999;18(5):402-405. doi:10.1007/s100670050126
Google Scholar
276.
Salaffi F, Leardini G, Canesi B, et al. Reliability and validity of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index in Italian patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2003;11(8):551-560. doi:10.1016/s1063-4584(03)00089-x
Google Scholar
277.
Monticone M, Ambrosini E, Secci C, Rocca B, Ferrante S, Capone A. Responsiveness and minimal important changes of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index in subjects undergoing rehabilitation following hip fracture. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;96(5):321-326. doi:10.1097/phm.0000000000000609
Google Scholar
278.
Hashimoto H, Hanyu T, Sledge CB, Lingard EA. Validation of a Japanese patient-derived outcome scale for assessingtotal knee arthroplasty: comparison with Western Ontario andMcMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC). J Orthop Sci. 2003;8(3):288-293. doi:10.1007/s10776-002-0629-0
Google Scholar
279.
Fujita K, Makimoto K. The reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) for patients with total hip arthroplasty. J Japan Acad Nurs Sci. 2007;27(2):53-60. doi:10.5630/jans.27.2_53
Google Scholar
280.
Bae SC, Lee HS, Yun HR, Kim TH, Yoo DH, Kim SY. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of Korean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) and Lequesne osteoarthritis indices for clinical research. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2001;9(8):746-750. doi:10.1053/joca.2001.0471
Google Scholar
281.
Park SH, Kang BH, Kim MJ, et al. Validation of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index short form (WOMAC-SF) and its relevance to disability and frailty. Yonsei Med J. 2020;61(3):251-256. doi:10.3349/ymj.2020.61.3.251
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
282.
Mohamad Z, Haron R, Justine M. Validity and reliability of the Malay versions of Western Ontorio McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Knee Algofunctional Osteoarthritis Index (AFI) among women with knee arthritis symptoms in Malaysia. Int Med J. 2016;23(6):691-695.
Google Scholar
283.
Gogtay N, Thatte U, Dasgupta B, Deshpande S. Use of the WOMAC questionnaire in Mumbai and the challenges of translation and cross cultural adaptation. Indian J Med Ethics. 2013;10(1):33-35. doi:10.20529/ijme.2013.007
Google Scholar
284.
Faik A, Benbouazza K, Amine B, et al. Translation and validation of Moroccan Western Ontario and Mc Master Universities (WOMAC) osteoarthritis index in knee osteoarthritis. Rheumatol Int. 2008;28(7):677-683. doi:10.1007/s00296-007-0498-z
Google Scholar
285.
Nakarmi S, Haq SA, Vaidya B. Translation, validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Nepali version of WOMAC®LK 3.1. Int J Rheum Dis. 2019;22(10):1877-1883. doi:10.1111/1756-185x.13690
Google Scholar
286.
Nadrian H, Moghimi N, Nadrian E, et al. Validity and reliability of the Persian versions of WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index and Lequesne Algofunctional Index. Clin Rheumatol. 2012;31(7):1097-1102. doi:10.1007/s10067-012-1983-7
Google Scholar
287.
Ebrahimzadeh MH, Makhmalbaf H, Birjandinejad A, Keshtan FG, Hoseini HA, Mazloumi SM. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) in Persian speaking patients with knee osteoarthritis. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2014;2(1):57-62.
Google Scholar
288.
Escobar A, Quintana JM, Bilbao A, Azkárate J, Güenaga JI. Validation of the Spanish version of the WOMAC questionnaire for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Clin Rheumatol. 2002;21(6):466-471. doi:10.1007/s100670200117
Google Scholar
289.
Villanueva I, del Mar Guzman M, Javier Toyos F, Ariza-Ariza R, Navarro F. Relative efficiency and validity properties of a visual analogue vs a categorical scaled version of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) Index: Spanish versions. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2004;12(3):225-231. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2003.11.006
Google Scholar
290.
Quintana JM, Escobar A, Bilbao A, Arostegui I, Lafuente I, Vidaurreta I. Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after hip joint replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2005;13(12):1076-1083. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2005.06.012
Google Scholar
291.
Escobar A, Quintana JM, Bilbao A, Aróstegui I, Lafuente I, Vidaurreta I. Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after total knee replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2007;15(3):273-280. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2006.09.001
Google Scholar
292.
Escobar A, González M, Quintana JM, Bilbao A, Ibañez B. Validation of a prioritization tool for patients on the waiting list for total hip and knee replacements. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009;15(1):97-102. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.00961.x
Google Scholar
293.
Bilbao A, Quintana JM, Escobar A, Las Hayas C, Orive M. Validation of a proposed WOMAC short form for patients with hip osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9(1):75. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-9-75
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
294.
Escobar A, Vrotsou K, Bilbao A, Quintana JM, García Pérez L, Herrera-Espiñeira C. Validación de una escala reducida de capacidad funcional del cuestionario WOMAC [Validation of a short form of the function dimension of the WOMAC questionnaire]. Gac Sanit. 2011;25(6):513-518. doi:10.1016/j.gaceta.2011.06.003
Google Scholar
295.
Ayala A, Bilbao A, Garcia-Perez S, Escobar A, Forjaz MJ. Scale invariance and longitudinal stability of the Physical Functioning Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index using the Rasch model. Rheumatol Int. 2018;38(3):473-479. doi:10.1007/s00296-017-3901-4
Google Scholar
296.
Roos EM, Klässbo M, Lohmander LS. WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness in patients with arthroscopically assessed osteoarthritis. Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities. Scand J Rheumatol. 1999;28(4):210-215. doi:10.1080/03009749950155562
Google Scholar
297.
Söderman P, Malchau H. Validity and reliability of Swedish WOMAC osteoarthritis index: a self-administered disease-specific questionnaire (WOMAC) versus generic instruments (SF-36 and NHP). Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71(1):39-46. doi:10.1080/00016470052943874
Google Scholar
298.
Dunbar MJ, Robertsson O, Ryd L, Lidgren L. Appropriate questionnaires for knee arthroplasty. Results of a survey of 3600 patients from the Swedish knee arthroplasty registry. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83-B(3):339-344x. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.83b3.0830339
Google Scholar
299.
Tangtrakulwanich B, Wiwatwongwana S, Chongsuvivatwong V, Geater AF. Comparison of validity, and responsiveness between general and disease-specific quality of life instruments (Thai version) in knee osteoarthritis. J Med Assoc Thai. 2006;89(9):1454-1459.
Google Scholar
300.
Kuptniratsaikul V, Rattanachaiyanont M. Validation of a modified Thai version of the Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) osteoarthritis index for knee osteoarthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2007;26(10):1641-1645. doi:10.1007/s10067-007-0560-y
Google Scholar
301.
Tüzün EH, Eker L, Aytar A, Daşkapan A, Bayramoğlu M. Acceptability, reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Turkish version of WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2005;13(1):28-33. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2004.10.010
Google Scholar
302.
Basaran S, Guzel R, Seydaoglu G, Guler-Uysal F. Validity, reliability, and comparison of the WOMAC osteoarthritis index and Lequesne algofunctional index in Turkish patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2010;29(7):749-756. doi:10.1007/s10067-010-1398-2
Google Scholar
303.
Tuncay Duruöz M, Acer Kasman S, Hande Gezer H, Duruöz E. Validity and reliability of the Mini-Osteoarthritis Knee and Hip Quality of Life scale in Turkish population. Arch Rheumatol. 2021;37(1):119-128. doi:10.46497/archrheumatol.2022.8863
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
304.
Roos EM, Roos HP, Ekdahl C, Lohmander LS. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) - validation of a Swedish version. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 1998;8(6):439-448. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.1998.tb00465.x
Google Scholar
305.
Roos EM, Lohmander LS. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1(1):64. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-1-64
PubMed CentralPubMed
306.
Roos EM, Toksvig-Larsen S. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) - validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1(1):17. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-1-17
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
307.
Zhou M, Wang H, Zeng X, et al. Mortality, morbidity, and risk factors in China and its provinces, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2017. Lancet. 2019;394(10204):1145-1158. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(19)30427-1
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
308.
Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. 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. J Rheumatol. 1988;15(12):1833-1840.
Google Scholar
309.
Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)--development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998;28(2):88-96. doi:10.2519/jospt.1998.28.2.88
Google Scholar
310.
Theiler R, Spielberger J, Bischoff HA, Bellamy N, Huber J, Kroesen S. Clinical evaluation of the WOMAC 3.0 OA Index in numeric rating scale format using a computerized touch screen version. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2002;10(6):479-481. doi:10.1053/joca.2002.0807
Google Scholar
311.
Putman S, Preda C, Girard J, Duhamel A, Migaud H. Mapping and crosswalk of the Oxford Hip Score and different versions of the hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2021;479(7):1534-1544. doi:10.1097/corr.0000000000001675
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
312.
Roos EM, Lohmander LS. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1(1):64. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-1-64
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
313.
Nilsson-Helander K, Thomeé R, Grävare-Silbernagel K, et al. The Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS): development and validation. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(3):421-426. doi:10.1177/0363546506294856
Google Scholar
314.
Martin RL, Hutt DM, Wukich DK. Validity of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) in diabetes mellitus. Foot Ankle Int. 2009;30(4):297-302. doi:10.3113/fai.2009.0297
Google Scholar

Appendix. Cross-culturally adapted PROMs psychometric properties. Number of the supporting psychometric properties for reliability, validity, and responsiveness for each PROMs language version are listed. PROMs language versions supported by evidence of reliability, validity, and responsiveness are highlighted in bold.
PROMs Language Reliability Validity Responsiveness
ACL-RSL Arabic 1 1 0
Brazilian 1 1 0
Chinese 2 2 0
Dutch 1 1 1
French 0 1 0
German 1 1 0
Italian 3 3 0
Japanese 1 1 0
Korean 1 1 0
Lithuanian 1 1 0
Norwegian 1 1 0
Spanish 1 1 0
Swedish 1 1 0
Turkish 1 1 0
ATRS Chinese 1 1 1
Danish 1 1 0
Dutch 1 1 1
French 1 1 0
Greek 1 1 0
Italian 1 1 0
Korean 1 1 0
Norwegian 1 1 0
Persian 1 1 0
Portuguese 1 1 0
Polish 1 1 0
Swedish 1 1 0
Turkish 1 1 0
AKPS Arabic 1 1 0
Brazilian 1 1 1
Dutch 2 1 0
French 1 1 0
Greek 1 1 0
Norwegian 1 1 0
Spanish 1 1 0
FAAM Brazilian 1 1 0
Chinese 1 1 0
Danish 0 1 0
Dutch 1 1 0
Finnish 0 1 0
French 1 1 0
German 1 1 0
Italian 1 1 0
Japanese 1 1 0
Persian 1 1 0
Spanish 1 0 0
Thai 1 1 0
Turkish 1 1 0
FADI Italian 1 1 0
HAGOS Brazilian 1 1 0
Chinese 1 1 1
Danish 1 2 0
Dutch 3 3 0
Italian 1 1 0
Norwegian 0 1 0
Swedish 1 1 0
HOOS Chinese 1 1 1
Dutch 1 1 0
French 1 1 1
German 1 2 1
Italian 1 1 1
Japanese 1 1 1
Korean 1 1 1
Persian 1 1 0
Polish 2 2 1
Portuguese 2 2 0
Romanian 1 1 0
Thai 1 1 0
Turkish 1 1 0
HOS Brazilian 1 1 0
German 2 2 1
Korean 1 1 1
Portuguese 0 1 0
Romanian 1 1 0
Spanish 1 1 0
Turkish 1 1 1
IHOT-12 Dutch 1 1 0
French 1 1 1
German 1 1 1
Greek 1 1 1
Japanese 1 1 1
Swedish 1 1 1
Turkish 1 1 0
IHOT-33 Chinese 1 1 1
Dutch 1 1 0
French 1 1 0
German 1 1 1
Spanish 1 1 0
Thai 1 1 0
KOOS Arabic 4 4 0
Chinese 5 5 2
Danish 1 1 0
Dutch 2 2 1
Finnish 1 1 0
French 2 2 2
Filipino 1 1 0
German 1 1 0
Greek 1 1 0
Hindi 1 1 1
Icelandic 1 1 0
India 1 1 0
Indonesian 1 1 0
Italian 2 2 0
Japanese 1 3 1
Malay 1 1 0
Norwegian 0 1 0
Persian 4 4 1
Polish 2 0 2
Portuguese 3 3 2
Spanish 2 3 3
Swedish 3 3 3
Turkish 1 1 1
Urdu 1 1 0
KOS-ADLS Arabic 2 2 2
Chinese 1 1 1
French 1 0 1
German 1 1 0
Greek 1 1 0
Persian 1 1 1
Polish 1 1 1
Portuguese 1 1 1
Turkish 1 1 0
MOXFQ Chinese 1 0 1
Dutch 1 1 0
Finnish 0 1 0
French 1 1 0
German 2 2 2
Italian 1 1 1
Korean 1 1 0
Persian 1 1 0
Spanish 2 2 2
Turkish 2 2 0
NHS Portuguese 0 1 0
Turkish 1 1 0
OHS Chinese 1 1 1
Danish 1 2 0
Dutch 0 1 0
French 0 1 0
German 1 3 2
Indonesian 1 1 1
Italian 1 1 1
Japanese 0 1 1
Korean 1 1 1
Persian 2 2 0
Romanian 0 1 0
Spanish 2 2 1
Turkish 0 1 0
OKS Arabic 3 3 1
Chinese 6 9 0
Dutch 1 1 0
Estonian 1 1 0
Finish 1 1 1
French 1 1 0
German 2 2 1
Greek 1 1 0
Japanese 1 1 1
Korean 1 1 0
Persian 1 1 0
Portuguese 1 1 0
Slovenia 1 1 0
Spanish 1 1 0
Thai 1 1 0
Turkish 1 1 0
SEFAS Danish 1 1 1
German 1 1 1
Spanish-French 0 1 0
Swedish 3 4 4
Thai 1 1 0
Turkish 1 1 0
WORQ Korean 1 1 0
WOMAC Arabic 2 2 0
Bengali 1 1 0
Brazilian 2 3 0
Chinese 2 5 2
Dutch 4 4 1
Finnish 2 3 1
French 0 0 1
French-Canadian 2 2 0
German 3 4 3
Greek 2 2 0
Hebrew 1 1 0
Italian 1 1 1
Japanese 1 2 0
Korean 1 2 1
Malay 1 1 0
Marathi 0 1 0
Moroccan 1 1 0
Nepali 1 1 0
Persian 2 2 0
Spanish 4 5 4
Swedish 3 3 1
Thai 2 2 1
Tturkish 3 3 1