OBJECTIVES: The collection of pre- and post-operative Patient Reported Outcome (PROs) have traditionally been used to assess the benefit of medical and surgical interventions. More recently, individual patient level PROs have been used in everyday clinical practice. Online website ‘electronic’ collection, so called remote ePROs, provides a platform to collect scores at regular intervals and report results back to both patients and their clinicians. Chronic conditions can then be monitored over time to compare the response to treatment with that of other patients. The primary aim of this study was to assess whether scores collected electronically via an online internet website (ePROs)  are equivalent to scores collected via the traditional pen and paper format (PROs). METHODS: A group of 47 patients, who had previously undergone open hip debridement for femeroacetabular impingement, were allocated to one of two groups as part of a randomized crossover study. As per the ‘International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force Report’, this study was powered to rule out a difference between PRO and ePRO assessment of 0.3 standard deviations. Group 1 completed the online ePRO scores- Oxford, McCarthy, UCLA and HowRu score- followed by the PRO paper equivalents one week later, and Group 2 completed the scores in reverse order. RESULTS: The difference between the online ePRO and paper PRO Oxford score in Group 1 was 1.6, 0.9 to 2.4 (mean, 95% confidence interval (CI)) and in Group 2 was 0.8, 0.2 to 1.3 (mean, 95% CI). There was no significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2. Therefore analysis revealed an ePRO Oxford score of 32.8, 29.7 to 35.8 (mean, 95% CI) and a PRO score of 33.0, 29.9 to 36.1 (mean, 95% CI).  CONCLUSIONS: Remote online ePRO score collection using this website is equivalent to paper PRO collection.