EP8.61 Patients Report Less Hip Pain and Dysfunction in the Clinic Compared to Remote Outcome Collection Through a Multi-Center Database

Clicks: 11
ID: 331142
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #195 of 444 articles by views in Journal of hip preservation surgery

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 444 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) assess pain, function, and quality of life for those with hip conditions. As PROMs are increasingly collected both in clinical settings and through multi-center registry studies after hip preservation surgery, understanding the impact of administration setting is essential. The aim of this study was to compare International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) responses collected during clinic visits versus those collected remotely through a multi-center registry. Methods 101 patients presenting to an adolescent and young adult hip clinic completed the International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) pre-operatively and at a minimum of one year post-operatively in clinic and remotely as part of a multi-center registry. The primary outcome of interest was the relationship between iHOT-12 scores collected in clinic versus remotely through the registry. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests compared pre-operative, post-operative, and change of scores between settings. Spearman’s correlation test examined the relationship between clinic-collected and remote-collected iHOT-12 scores. Results Pre- and post-operative iHOT-12 scores were higher in clinic compared to remote collection (median: 31.4 vs 27.8, p<0.001 and 84.1 vs 78.8, p<0.001, respectively). However, there was no significant difference in pre- to post-operative change in scores between collection settings (47.7 vs 44.7, p=0.55). iHOT-12 scores demonstrated moderate correlation between collection methods pre-operatively (ρ=0.66, p<0.001), very strong correlation post-operatively (ρ=0.92, p<0.001), and strong correlation of change from pre-operative to post-operative (ρ=0.81, p<0.001). No significant differences were observed between the two collection methods for thresholds of minimal clinically important difference (p=1), substantial clinical benefit (p=0.61), or patient acceptable symptomatic state (p=0.36). Conclusions PROMs collected remotely through a multi-center registry are consistently lower than those collected in clinic both pre-operatively and post-operatively. Although the setting of PROM completion influences reported symptom severity, these findings support the use of remote administration as a dependable method for assessing change in patient-perceived pain and function.
Reference Key
openalex_W7220405658 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Aaron Blom, Yumeng Gao, Taylor Murry, Lauren Vande Kamp, Anthony Pennuto, Robert W. Westermann, Michael Willey
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Journal of hip preservation surgery
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jhps/hnag043.441
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnag043.441
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.