Author's reply

摘要

The letter from Thorbofn et rl. was very insightful, and we welcome this kind of peer review. The comments regarding whether the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) is more or less responsive than other instruments is well taken. Thorborg et al. are correct in stating that an indirect comparison is not entirely valid. A head-to-head comparison in the same group of patients is, in fact, more appropriate and scientifically valid. The comments from our discussion were more of a "ball-parking" exercise to put the iHOT-33 in perspective with other instruments. We agree that this may be considered misleading to the readers. However, to provide some clarity, we calculated the standardized effect size1 by taking the mean difference from baseline to the 6-month follow-up (33.13 points) divided by the SD of the baseline scores (16.6 points), for an effect size of 1.98, rounded up to 2.0. This represents a highly responsive measure.