- Beard D J, Harris K, Dawson J, Doll H, Murray D W, Carr A J, Price A J. Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68(1): 73–9.
- Bellamy N, Campbell J, Hill J, Band P. A comparative study of telephone versus onsite completion of the WOMAC 3.0 osteoarthritis index. J Rheumatol 2002; 29(4): 783–6.
- Bowling A. Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J Public Health 2005; 27(3): 281–91.
- Dillman D A, Phelps G, Tortora R, Swift K, Kohrell J, Berck J, Messer B L. Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response(IVR) and the Internet. Social Sci Res 2009; 38(1): 1–18.
- Fitzpatrick R, Morris R, Hajat S, Reeves B, Murray D W, Hannen D, Rigge M, Williams O, Gregg P. The value of short and simple measures to assess outcomes for patients of total hip replacement surgery. Quality Saf Health Care 2000; 9(3): 146–50.
- Gwaltney C J, Shields A L, Shiffman S. Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. Value Health 2008; 11(2): 322–33.
- Hanmer J, Hays R D, Fryback D G. Mode of administration is important in US national estimates of health-related quality of life. Med Care 2007; 45(12): 1171–9.
- Hays R D, Kim S, Spritzer K L, Kaplan R M, Tally S, Feeny D, Liu H, Fryback D G. Effects of mode and order of administration on generic health-related quality of life scores. Value Health 2009; 12(6): 1035–9.
- Honaker L M. The equivalency of computerized and conventional MMPI administration: a critical review. Clin Psychol Rev 1988; 8(6): 561–77.
- Hood K, Robling M, Ingledew D, Gillespie D, Greene G, Ivins R, Russell I, Sayers A, Shaw C, Williams J. Mode of data elicitation, acquisition and response to surveys: a systematic review. Southampton: NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme: Executive Summaries; 2012.
- Lenguerrand E, Wylde V, Gooberman-Hill R, Sayers A, Brunton L, Beswick A D, Dieppe P, Blom A W. Trajectories of pain and function after primary hip and knee arthroplasty: the ADAPT cohort study. PloS One 2016; 11(2): e0149306.
- Messih M A, Naylor J, Descallar J, Manickam A, Mittal R, Harris I. Mail versus telephone administration of the Oxford knee and hip scores. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29(3): 491–4.
- Murray D, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard D, Carr A, Dawson J. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2007; 89-B(8): 1010–1014.
- Perneger T V. What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. BMJ 1998; 18,316(7139): 1236–8.
- Porter S R, Whitcomb M E, Weitzer W H. Multiple surveys of students and survey fatigue. New Directions for Institutional Research 2004; 2004(121): 63–73.
- Quintana J, 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): 1076–83.
- Rutherford C, Costa D, Mercieca-Bebber R, Rice H, Gabb L, King M. Mode of administration does not cause bias in patient-reported outcome results: a meta-analysis. Qual Life Res 2016; 25(3): 559–74.
- Tourangeau R, Rips L J, Rasinski K. The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
- Wood G, McLauchlan G. Outcome assessment in the elderly after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2006; 21(3): 398–404.
- Wylde V, Blom A. The failure of survivorship. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2011; 93-B(5): 569–70.
- Choose new content alerts to be informed about new research of interest to you
- Easy remote access to your institution's subscriptions on any device, from any location
- Save your searches and schedule alerts to send you new results
- Export your search results into a .csv file to support your research