While total hip replacements (THR), also known as total hip arthroplasties, are hugely successful there still are, and will always be, poor outcomes. This post is an excerpt from my thesis where I tried to summarize the dark side of THR.
The success of a THR is measured by 4 main outcome categories: (1) patient survival, (2) implant survival, (3) other adverse events, and (4) patient-reported outcome measures (PROM). Although technical outcomes such as component positioning, soft tissue preservation or leg length restoration can be viewed as a type of outcome, they all aim at addressing issues within the 4 main outcomes.
The patient surviving the surgery is the most fundamental premise for any kind of surgery. The mortality associated with the THR procedures occurs soon after the surgery; effects related to bleeding, pulmonary embolism, and other per-operative causes quickly decline during the first months . The 90-day mortality rate is the most common mortality measure , although some studies report in-hospital mortality  or 30-day mortality .
Prior to the aseptic technique introduced in late 19th century, mortality rates of 50% were common . Even today there seems to be improvement in the mortality rates –, and the current 90-day mortality in Sweden is less than 1% , similar to rates in other countries , , , , –.
Implant survival relates to the survival of the implanted material. There are two terms frequently used for estimating implant survival, re-operations and revisions:
- Re-operation is a wider definition whereby any further surgery affecting the operated hip is included.
- Revision is a subgroup of re-operations including only the surgeries where the implant is exchanged.
The Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (SHAR) has from its start in 1979 used re-operations as a measurement . Re-operations and revisions can be further subdivided into the underlying cause:
- Infection: Often referred to as periprosthetic joint infection, it occurs most frequently within the first year of surgery ,  with an estimated 2 year cumulative incidence of 1% .
- Fracture: Periprostethic fractures occur both early and late after THR. Early re-operations within 6 months are frequently technical complications and are associated with cementless stems . The average time to fracture is 7 years, and the estimated cumulative incidence about 1% for 5 years, and 3-4% at 10 years , .
- Instability: A THR dislocates more easily than the innate hip joint. The incidence of dislocation is difficult to measure and ranges in international studies between 1 and 5% –. Between 2009 and 2012, 0.3% in Sweden were re-operated within 2 years due to dislocation [26, s 52]. Most dislocations occur early on, 50%-70% occur within the first 3 postoperative months , , although late dislocations (> 5 years) more often require re-operation .
- Loosening/lysis: Loosening occurrs whenthe bone retracts from the implant with a radiolucent line visible on x-rays. If the process is localized and the implant is clearly not loose, it is referred to as osteolysis . Common inflammatory pathophysiology for the processes has been hypothesized , . The cumulative incidence for loosening/osteolysis is 0.2% at 2 years, 0.8% at 5 years, and 2% at 10 years (study I).
- Other: There are multiple other causes such as technical failure or implant fracture for re-operations that amount to a cumulative 10 year incidence of less that 3% (study I).
The 10 year re-operation rate is currently at an all-time low, less than 5% for patients operated due to primary osteoarthritis . This coincides with the new having increasing difficulty in improving on the existing designs , currently 3 stems constitute 99% of all implanted cemented stems in Sweden [26, s 13].
Death and re-operations are only a subset of adverse events after THR. Other events such as cardiovascular, thromboembolic events can be equally important, while minor events such as urinary tract infection may be quality of care indicators. Adverse events in medical practice are fairly common, expected around 3-15% –, and perhaps even more common in orthopaedics –. There is currently no validated registry-based tool for the Swedish population, although readmissions combined with ICD-codes are reported on a yearly basis in Sweden . Our research group is currently working on validating a new tool for measuring adverse events that we hope will allow us to study this closer in the future.
The THR indication is primarily to improve quality of life, and is very successful at this . Charnley reported in his landmark paper on long-term results in 1972 that the majority of patients had excellent results regarding pain and walking ability . As the indications have widened and patient demographics changed, the importance of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have reentered center stage .
Furthermore, with the improvement in implant survival and low re-operation,PROMs are becoming increasingly important for evaluating THR . Although hip resurfacing has fallen out of favor, many of its main proponents argued for it because of better PROMs –.
In orthopaedics there are two main types of PROMs: generic measures and disease specific measures. Generic measures usually span different health domains, and can be used irrespective of the particular disease being studied; this has the advantage of allowing comparison between different diseases . Generic measures are frequently also referred to as health related quality of life (HRQoL). There are 2 main HRQoL instruments used in orthopaedics:
- Euroqol 5 dimensions (EQ-5D): The EQ-5D™ was developed in the late 80s by the EuroQol group as a standardised, non-disease-specific instrument for describing and evaluating health states. The tool consists of 5 different dimensions and avisual analogue scale (VAS). The dimensions are weighted according to a value set in an index where values of 0 correspond to states equal to death and 1 to perfect health. The 5 dimensions are:
- Self care
- Usual activities
- Short Form 36 (SF-36): The SF-36® has its roots in the 70s but was formalized in the late 80s, and is now managed by the Medical Outcomes Trust. The tool consists of 36 items that are aggregated into 8 different domains that in turn can be divided into physical and mental health summaries. The domains and summaries are usually expressed on a scale ranging from 0 to 100 where higher scores indicate better health for that domain. Simpler alternatives to the 36 questions have been developed by QualityMetric, SF-12® and SF-8™. The 8 domains are:
- Bodily pain
- Physical functioning
- Role limitations due to physical health
- General health
- Mental health
- Social functioning
- Role limitations due to emotional health.
Disease specific quality of life measures and hip specific outcome measures are separated by some into two entities . As they are both limited in their extent, they are grouped together under disease specific measures in this thesis. There are currently 3 commonly used disease specific measures for hip osteoarthritis and THR:
- Harris hip score: The score was originally introduced for evaluating acetabular fractures [55, s 69], but has since been widened to other hip related diseases , . Harris hip score was originally not intended for self-reporting, but studies have shown that this is feasible . The score consists of 10 items that are merged into a score ranging from 0 to 100 where higher scores indicate better hip function.
- Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC): The WOMAC® score was developed in the 80s and consists of 24 items that are summarised into 3 subscales–. The subscores range from 0 to 100 where higher scores indicate poorer hip function. The 3 subscales are:
- Physical function
- Oxford hip score: The score consists of 12 items add up to a score from 12 to 60 where higher scores indicate poorer hip function . The scoring was updated by the original authors in 2007; the new score ranges from 0 to 48 and has flipped the scale, i.e. higher number indicates better hip function .
This is just a handful of the available disease specific hip scores ,  and there is an ongoing effort in validating and translating new measures , . PROMs are generally believed to be less susceptible to interviewer’s bias as the majority of them are self-reported, since patients answer the questionnaire without any aid from study personnel. The lack of supervision can increase the risk of misunderstood questions and skipped answers [67, s 500]. Recall bias can still occur and it is therefore important that the health states are prospectively recorded . There is also a risk of response bias, i.e. that the patient responds to the survey differently from those non-responding. This stresses the importance of maximizing response rates –.
PROMs are also believed to be more susceptible than other outcomes to cultural influence. Dieppe et al. reported large variations between and within countries in disease severity when deciding to operate . This is something that I explored in one of the thesis articles.
 A. B. Pedersen, J. A. Baron, S. Overgaard, och S. P. Johnsen, ”Short- and long-term mortality following primary total hip replacement for osteoarthritis: A Danish nationwide epidemiological study”, J. Bone Joint Surg. Br., vol 93-B, num 2, ss 172–177, jan 2011.
 J. Kärrholm, G. Garellick, och P. Herberts, ”Mortality after total hip replacement”, i Annual Report 2006. Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, 2007, ss 75–77.
 S. G. Memtsoudis, M. Pumberger, Y. Ma, Y.-L. Chiu, G. Fritsch, P. Gerner, L. Poultsides, och A. G. D. Valle, ”Epidemiology and risk factors for perioperative mortality after total hip and knee arthroplasty”, J. Orthop. Res., vol 30, num 11, ss 1811–1821, nov 2012.
 H. D. Taylor, D. A. Dennis, och H. S. Crane, ”Relationship between mortality rates and hospital patient volume for medicare patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery of the hip, knee, spine, and femur”, J. Arthroplasty, vol 12, num 3, ss 235–242, apr 1997.
 O. Sköldenberg, Uncemented femoral stems. Studies on periprosthetic bone remodelling and prevention of bone loss in total hip arthroplasty. Stockholm, Sweden: Karolinska Institutet, 2010.
 P. Cram, X. Lu, P. J. Kaboli, M. S. Vaughan-Sarrazin, X. Cai, B. R. Wolf, och Y. Li, ”Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Medicare Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty, 1991-2008”, JAMA J. Am. Med. Assoc., vol 305, num 15, ss 1560 –1567, apr 2011.
 L. P. Hunt, Y. Ben-Shlomo, E. M. Clark, P. Dieppe, A. Judge, A. J. MacGregor, J. H. Tobias, K. Vernon, och A. W. Blom, ”90-day mortality after 409 096 total hip replacements for osteoarthritis, from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales: a retrospective analysis”, The Lancet, vol 382, num 9898, ss 1097–1104, sep 2013.
 A. B. Pedersen, F. Mehnert, H. T. Sorensen, C. Emmeluth, S. Overgaard, och S. P. Johnsen, ”The risk of venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, major bleeding and death in patients undergoing total hip and knee replacement A 15-year retrospective cohort study of routine clinical practice”, Bone Jt. J., vol 96-B, num 4, ss 479–485, jan 2014.
 G. Garellick, J. Kärrholm, C. Rogmark, O. Rolfson, och P. Herberts, Annual Report 2011 Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. 2012.
 S. A. Lie, L. B. Engesaeter, L. I. Havelin, H. K. Gjessing, och S. E. Vollset, ”Mortality after total hip replacement: 0-10-year follow-up of 39,543 patients in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register”, Acta Orthop., vol 71, num 1, ss 19–27, jan 2000.
 L. Pulido, J. Parvizi, M. Macgibeny, P. F. Sharkey, J. J. Purtill, R. H. Rothman, och W. J. Hozack, ”In Hospital Complications After Total Joint Arthroplasty”, J. Arthroplasty, vol 23, num 6, Supplement, ss 139–145, sep 2008.
 L. M. de Vries, M. C. J. M. Sturkenboom, J. A. N. Verhaar, J. H. Kingma, och B. H. C. Stricker, ”Complications after hip arthroplasty and the association with hospital procedure volume”, Acta Orthop., vol 82, num 5, ss 545–552, okt 2011.
 R. Jimenez-Garcıa, M. Villanueva-Martınez, C. Fernandez-de-las-Penas, V. Hernandez-Barrera, A. Rıos-Luna, P. C. Garrido, A. L. de Andres, I. Jimenez-Trujillo, J. S. R. Montero, och A. Gil-de-Miguel, ”Trends in primary total hip arthroplasty in Spain from 2001 to 2008: Evaluating changes in demographics, comorbidity, incidence rates, length of stay, costs and mortality”, BMC Musculoskelet. Disord., vol 12, s 43, feb 2011.
 J. A. Singh, M. R. Jensen, W. S. Harmsen, S. E. Gabriel, och D. G. Lewallen, ”Cardiac and thromboembolic complications and mortality in patients undergoing total hip and total knee arthroplasty”, Ann. Rheum. Dis., vol 70, num 12, ss 2082–2088, dec 2011.
 J. Kärrholm, ”The Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (www.shpr.se)”, Acta Orthop., vol 81, ss 3–4, feb 2010.
 L. Pulido, E. Ghanem, A. Joshi, J. J. Purtill, och J. Parvizi, ”Periprosthetic Joint Infection: The Incidence, Timing, and Predisposing Factors”, Clin. Orthop., vol 466, num 7, ss 1710–1715, jul 2008.
 H. Dale, A. M. Fenstad, G. Hallan, L. I. Havelin, O. Furnes, S. Overgaard, A. B. Pedersen, J. Kärrholm, G. Garellick, P. Pulkkinen, A. Eskelinen, K. Mäkelä, och L. B. Engesæter, ”Increasing risk of prosthetic joint infection after total hip arthroplasty”, Acta Orthop., vol 83, num 5, ss 449–458, okt 2012.
 J. V. Lindgren, M. Gordon, P. Wretenberg, J. Kärrholm, och G. Garellick, ”Incidence of deep periprosthetic joint infection following primary total hip arthroplasty: Including a new method of evaluation and surveillance”, Acta Orthop., vol 85, s ??–??, 2014.
 G. J. Della Rocca, K. S. M. Leung, och H.-C. Pape, ”Periprosthetic Fractures: Epidemiology and Future Projections”, J. Orthop. Trauma June 2011, 2011.
 H. Lindahl, H. Malchau, P. Herberts, och G. Garellick, ”Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: Classification and Demographics of 1049 Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures from the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register”, J. Arthroplasty, vol 20, num 7, ss 857–865, okt 2005.
 R. E. Cook, P. J. Jenkins, P. J. Walmsley, J. T. Patton, och C. M. Robinson, ”Risk factors for Periprosthetic Fractures of the Hip: A Survivorship Analysis”, Clin. Orthop., vol 466, num 7, ss 1652–1656, jul 2008.
 R. Y. Woo och B. F. Morrey, ”Dislocations after total hip arthroplasty”, J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., vol 64, num 9, ss 1295–1306, dec 1982.
 B. Kristiansen, L. Jørgensen, och P. Hölmich, ”Dislocation following total hip arthroplasty”, Arch. Orthop. Trauma. Surg., vol 103, num 6, ss 375–377, apr 1985.
 M. Soong, H. E. Rubash, och W. Macaulay, ”Dislocation After Total Hip Arthroplasty”, J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg., vol 12, num 5, ss 314–321, sep 2004.
 M. Khatod, T. Barber, E. Paxton, R. Namba, och D. Fithian, ”An Analysis of the Risk of Hip Dislocation with a Contemporary Total Joint Registry”, Clin. Orthop., vol 447, ss 19–23, jun 2006.
 G. Garellick, C. Rogmark, J. Kärrholm, och O. Rolfsson, Svenska Höftprotesregistret Årsrapport 2012, vol 2012. 2013.
 S. S. Jameson, D. Lees, P. James, I. Serrano-Pedraza, P. F. Partington, S. D. Muller, R. M. D. Meek, och M. R. Reed, ”Lower rates of dislocation with increased femoral head size after primary total hip replacement: A five-year analysis of NHS patients in England”, J. Bone Joint Surg. Br., vol 93-B, num 7, ss 876–880, jan 2011.
 B. C. Werner, ”Instability after total hip arthroplasty”, World J. Orthop., vol 3, num 8, s 122, 2012.
 L. Pulido, C. Restrepo, och J. Parvizi, ”Late Instability Following Total Hip Arthroplasty”, Clin. Med. Amp Res., vol 5, num 2, ss 139–142, jun 2007.
 J. W. Harkess och J. R. J. Crockarell, ”Arthroplasty of the hip, Complications”, i Campbell’s operative orthopaedics., W. C. Campbell, S. T. Canale, och J. H. Beaty, Reds Philadelphia, PA: Mosby/Elsevier, 2008, ss 392–429.
 D. R. Haynes, T. N. Crotti, A. E. Potter, M. Loric, G. J. Atkins, D. W. Howie, och D. M. Findlay, ”The osteoclastogenic molecules RANKL and RANK are associated with periprosthetic osteolysis”, J. Bone Joint Surg. Br., vol 83, num 6, ss 902–911, aug 2001.
 D. R. Haynes, ”Bone lysis and inflammation”, Inflamm. Res. Off. J. Eur. Histamine Res. Soc. Al, vol 53, num 11, ss 596–600, nov 2004.
 R. Anand, S. E. Graves, R. N. de Steiger, D. C. Davidson, P. Ryan, L. N. Miller, och K. Cashman, ”What Is the Benefit of Introducing New Hip and Knee Prostheses?”, J. Bone Jt. Surg., vol 93, num Supplement 3, ss 51–54, dec 2011.
 T. A. Brennan, L. L. Leape, N. M. Laird, L. Hebert, A. R. Localio, A. G. Lawthers, J. P. Newhouse, P. C. Weiler, och H. H. Hiatt, ”Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I”, N. Engl. J. Med., vol 324, num 6, ss 370–376, feb 1991.
 E. Bosma, E. J. Veen, och J. A. Roukema, ”Incidence, nature and impact of error in surgery”, Br. J. Surg., vol 98, num 11, ss 1654–1659, jun 2011.
 R. M. Wilson, W. B. Runciman, R. W. Gibberd, B. T. Harrison, L. Newby, och J. D. Hamilton, ”The Quality in Australian Health Care Study”, Med. J. Aust., vol 163, num 9, ss 458–471, nov 1995.
 E. J. Thomas, D. M. Studdert, H. R. Burstin, E. J. Orav, T. Zeena, E. J. Williams, K. M. Howard, P. C. Weiler, och T. A. Brennan, ”Incidence and types of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado”, Med. Care, vol 38, num 3, ss 261–271, mar 2000.
 T. Schiøler, H. Lipczak, B. L. Pedersen, T. S. Mogensen, K. B. Bech, A. Stockmarr, A. R. Svenning, och A. Frølich, ”[Incidence of adverse events in hospitals. A retrospective study of medical records]”, Ugeskr. Laeger, vol 163, num 39, ss 5370–5378, sep 2001.
 C. Vincent, ”Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review”, BMJ, vol 322, num 7285, ss 517–519, mar 2001.
 M. Unbeck, O. Muren, och U. Lillkrona, ”Identification of adverse events at an orthopedics department in Sweden”, Acta Orthop., vol 79, num 3, ss 396–403, 2008.
 M. Unbeck, K. Schildmeijer, P. Henriksson, U. Jürgensen, O. Muren, L. Nilsson, och K. Pukk Härenstam, ”Is detection of adverse events affected by record review methodology? an evaluation of the ’Harvard Medical Practice Study’ method and the ’Global Trigger Tool’”, Patient Saf. Surg., vol 7, num 1, s 10, 2013.
 I. D. Learmonth, C. Young, och C. Rorabeck, ”The operation of the century: total hip replacement”, Lancet, vol 370, num 9597, ss 1508–19, okt 2007.
 J. Charnley, ”The long-term results of low-friction arthroplasty of the hip performed as a primary intervention”, J. Bone Joint Surg. Br., vol 54-B, num 1, ss 61–76, jan 1972.
 S. E. Gabriel och S.-L. T. Normand, ”Getting the Methods Right — The Foundation of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research”, N. Engl. J. Med., vol 367, num 9, ss 787–790, 2012.
 N. J. Devlin och J. Appleby, Getting the most out of PROMs: Putting health outcomes at the heart of NHS decision-making. The King’s Fund 2010, 2010.
 E. A. Lingard, K. Muthumayandi, och J. P. Holland, ”Comparison of patient-reported outcomes between hip resurfacing and total hip replacement”, J Bone Jt. Surg Br, vol 91-B, num 12, ss 1550–1554, dec 2009.
 S. Berger, ”For Young and Active, a Hip Replacement Alternative”, The New York Times, 17-okt-2006.
 P. N. Maffulli, ”Young at hip”, The Guardian, 09-feb-2006.
 A. Garratt, L. Schmidt, A. Mackintosh, och R. Fitzpatrick, ”Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures”, BMJ, vol 324, num 7351, s 1417, jun 2002.
 EuroQol Group, ”EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life”, Health Policy Amst. Neth., vol 16, num 3, ss 199–208, dec 1990.
 A. L. Stewart och J. E. Ware, Measuring Functioning and Well-being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach. Duke University Press, 1992.
 J. Ware Jr, M. Kosinski, och S. D. Keller, ”A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity”, Med. Care, vol 34, num 3, ss 220–233, mar 1996.
 J. E. Ware, How to Score and Interpret Single-item Health Status Measures: A Manual for Users of the of the SF-8 Health Survey:(with a Supplement on the SF-6 Health Survey). QualityMetric, Incorporated, 2001.
 E. Ashby, M. P. W. Grocott, och F. S. Haddad, ”Outcome measures for orthopaedic interventions on the hip”, J. Bone Joint Surg. Br., vol 90-B, num 5, ss 545–549, jan 2008.
 W. H. Harris, ”Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation”, J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., vol 51, num 4, ss 737–755, jun 1969.
 P. Soderman och H. Malchau, ”Is the Harris Hip Score System Useful to Study the Outcome of Total Hip Replacement?”, Clin. Orthop., vol 384, ss 189–197, mar 2001.
 H. L. Hoeksma, C. H. M. V. den Ende, H. K. Ronday, A. Heering, F. C. Breedveld, och J. Dekker, ”Comparison of the responsiveness of the Harris Hip Score with generic measures for hip function in osteoarthritis of the hip”, Ann. Rheum. Dis., vol 62, num 10, ss 935–938, jan 2003.
 N. N. Mahomed, D. C. Arndt, B. J. McGrory, och W. H. Harris, ”The Harris hip score: Comparison of patient self-report with surgeon assessment”, J. Arthroplasty, vol 16, num 5, ss 575–580, aug 2001.
 D. N. Bellamy och W. W. Buchanan, ”A preliminary evaluation of the dimensionality and clinical importance of pain and disability in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee”, Clin. Rheumatol., vol 5, num 2, ss 231–241, jun 1986.
 N. Bellamy, W. W. Buchanan, C. H. Goldsmith, J. Campbell, och L. W. Stitt, ”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., vol 15, num 12, ss 1833–1840, dec 1988.
 N. Bellamy, ”The WOMAC Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis Indices: development, validation, globalization and influence on the development of the AUSCAN Hand Osteoarthritis Indices”, Clin. Exp. Rheumatol., vol 23, num 5 Suppl 39, ss S148–153, okt 2005.
 J. Dawson, R. Fitzpatrick, A. Carr, och D. Murray, ”Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement”, J. Bone Joint Surg. Br., vol 78, num 2, ss 185–190, mar 1996.
 D. W. Murray, R. Fitzpatrick, K. Rogers, H. Pandit, D. J. Beard, A. J. Carr, och J. Dawson, ”The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores”, J. Bone Joint Surg. Br., vol 89-B, num 8, ss 1010–1014, jan 2007.
 A. Nilsdotter och A. Bremander, ”Measures of hip function and symptoms: Harris Hip Score (HHS), Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Lequesne Index of Severity for Osteoarthritis of the Hip (LISOH), and American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) Hip and Knee Questionnaire”, Arthritis Care Res., vol 63, num S11, ss S200–S207, nov 2011.
 H. Behrend, K. Giesinger, J. M. Giesinger, och M. S. Kuster, ”The “Forgotten Joint” as the Ultimate Goal in Joint Arthroplasty: Validation of a New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure”, J. Arthroplasty, vol 27, num 3, ss 430–436.e1, mar 2012.
 J. M. Giesinger, M. S. Kuster, B. Holzner, och K. Giesinger, ”Development Of A Computer-Adaptive Version Of The Forgotten Joint Score”, J. Arthroplasty, vol 28, num 3, ss 418–422, mar 2013.
 K. J. Rothman, S. Greenland, och T. L. Lash, Modern epidemiology. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer / Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008.
 S. S. Coughlin, ”Recall bias in epidemiologic studies”, J. Clin. Epidemiol., vol 43, num 1, ss 87–91, 1990.
 K. Korkeila, S. Suominen, J. Ahvenainen, A. Ojanlatva, P. Rautava, H. Helenius, och M. Koskenvuo, ”Non-response and related factors in a nation-wide health survey”, Eur. J. Epidemiol., vol 17, num 11, ss 991–999, nov 2001.
 J. Kim, J. H. Lonner, C. L. Nelson, och P. A. Lotke, ”Response bias: effect on outcomes evaluation by mail surveys after total knee arthroplasty”, J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., vol 86-A, num 1, ss 15–21, jan 2004.
 A. G. J. Bot, J. A. Anderson, V. Neuhaus, och D. Ring, ”Factors Associated With Survey Response in Hand Surgery Research”, Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res., vol 471, num 10, ss 3237–3242, okt 2013.
 P. Dieppe, A. Judge, S. Williams, I. Ikwueke, K.-P. Guenther, M. Floeren, J. Huber, T. Ingvarsson, I. Learmonth, L. S. Lohmander, A. Nilsdotter, W. Puhl, D. Rowley, R. Theiler, K. Dreinhoefer, och E. Study Group, ”Variations in the pre-operative status of patients coming to primary hip replacement for osteoarthritis in European orthopaedic centres”, BMC Musculoskelet. Disord., vol 10, num 1, s 19, 2009.