Comparative evaluation of three semi-quantitative radiographic grading techniques for knee osteoarthritis in terms of validity and reproducibility in 1759 X-rays: report of the OARSI–OMERACT task force

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this work was to compare the measurement properties of three categorical X-ray scoring methods of knee osteoarthritis (OA), both on semiflexed and extended views. METHODS: In data obtained from trials and cohorts, X-rays were graded using Kellgren and Lawrence (KL), the OA Research Society International (OARSI) joint space narrowing score, and measurement of joint space width (JSW). JSW was analyzed as a categorical variable. Construct validity was assessed through logistic regression between X-ray stages and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index. Inter-observer reliability was assessed in 50 subjects for extended views by weighted kappa. Intra-observer reliability and sensitivity to change were assessed separately for extended and semiflexed views in 50 patients who had both views performed, over a 30-month interval, by weighted kappa and standardized response mean (SRM). RESULTS: Extended views were available from three trials and two cohorts (1759 X-rays), including one trial in which both extended and semiflexed views (antero-posterior) were obtained. Correlation with clinical parameters was low for the three scoring methods, except for the single community-based cohort. Inter-rater reliability was higher for categorical JSW in extended views (kappa, 0.86 vs 0.56 and 0.48 for KL and OARSI, respectively). Intra-rater reliability was higher for categorical JSW, both in extended views (0.83 vs 0.61 and 0.71) and in semiflexed views (0.89 vs 0.50 and 0.67). Sensitivity to change was also higher for categorical JSW, particularly in semiflexed views (SRM, 0.49 vs 0.22 and 0.34). CONCLUSION: These results indicate categorical JSW, in particular on semiflexed views, may be the preferred method to evaluate structural severity in knee OA clinical trials

Satisfactory cross cultural equivalence of the Dutch WOMAC in patients with hip osteoarthritis waiting for arthroplasty

Background: Cross cultural validity is of vital importance for international comparisons. Objective: To investigate the validity of international Dutch-English comparisons when using the Dutch translation of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC). Patients and Methods: The dimensionality, reliability, construct validity, and cross cultural equivalence of the Dutch WOMAC in Dutch and Canadian patients waiting for primary total hip arthroplasty was investigated. Unidimensionality and cross cultural equivalence was quantified by principal component and Rasch analysis. Intratest reliability was quantified with Cronbach's α, and test-retest reliability with the intraclass correlation coefficient. Construct validity was quantified by correlating sum scores of the Dutch WOMAC, Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales (Dutch AIMS2), Health Assessment Questionnaire (Dutch HAQ), and Harris Hip Score (Dutch HHS). Results: The WOMAC was completed by 180 Dutch and 244 English speaking Canadian patients. Unidimensionality of the Dutch WOMAC was confirmed by principal component and Rasch analysis (good fit for 20/22 items). The intratest reliability of the Dutch WOMAC for pain and physical functioning was 0.88 and 0.96, whereas the test-retest reliability was 0.77 and 0.92, respectively. Dutch WOMAC pain sum score correlated 0.69 with Dutch HAQ pain, and 0.39 with Dutch HHS pain. Dutch WOMAC physical functioning sum score correlated 0.46 with Dutch AIMS2 mobility, 0.62 with Dutch AIMS2 walking and bending, 0.67 with Dutch HAQ disability, and 0.49 with Dutch HHS function. Differential item functioning (DIF) was shown for 6/22 Dutch items. Conclusions: The Dutch WOMAC permits valid international Dutch-English comparisons after correction for DIF

Protocol for a partially nested randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the scleroderma patient-centered intervention network COVID-19 home-isolation activities together (SPIN-CHAT) program to reduce anxiety among at-risk scleroderma patients

Objective: Contagious disease outbreaks and related restrictions can lead to negative psychological outcomes, particularly in vulnerable populations at risk due to pre-existing medical conditions. No randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have tested interventions to reduce mental health consequences of contagious disease outbreaks. The primary objective of the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network COVID-19 Home-isolation Activities Together (SPIN-CHAT) Trial is to evaluate the effect of a videoconference-based program on symptoms of anxiety. Secondary objectives include evaluating effects on symptoms of depression, stress, loneliness, boredom, physical activity, and social interaction.Methods: The SPIN-CHAT Trial is a pragmatic RCT that will be conducted using the SPIN-COVID-19 Cohort, a sub-cohort of the SPIN Cohort. Eligible participants will be SPIN-COVID-19 Cohort participants without a positive COVID-19 test, with at least mild anxiety (PROMIS Anxiety 4a v1.0 T-score >= 55), not working from home, and not receiving current counselling or psychotherapy. We will randomly assign 162 participants to intervention groups of 7 to 10 participants each or waitlist control. We will use a partially nested RCT design to reflect dependence between individuals in training groups but not in the waitlist control. The SPIN-CHAT Program includes activity engagement, education on strategies to support mental health, and mutual participant support. Intervention participants will receive the 4-week (3 sessions per week) SPIN-CHAT Program via video-conference. The primary outcome is PROMIS Anxiety 4a score immediately post-intervention.Ethics and dissemination: The SPIN-CHAT Trial will test whether a brief videoconference-based intervention will improve mental health outcomes among at-risk individuals during contagious disease outbreak

Use of alternative therapies by patients with rheumatic disease in Guadalajara, Mexico: Prevalence, beliefs, and expectations

Objective. To assess the prevalence, practices, beliefs, and expectations of patients with rheumatic diseases in relation to the use of alternative therapies. Methods. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 300 consecutive patients with rheumatic diseases at 3 outpatient rheumatic disease clinics in Guadalajara, Mexico to evaluate the use of alternative therapies. A face-to-face structured interview was administered by a trained assistant to evaluate the prevalence of use and patient beliefs, perceptions, and expectations in relation to alternative therapies. Results. Two hundred fifty patients (83%) had used a total of 1386 alternative therapies (range 1-19); 203 (68%) patients had used alternative therapy in the previous 12 months. Sixty-one percent received at least one alternative treatment before the first rheumatology consultation, but an additional 18% initiated these therapies after their initial contact with a rheumatologist at our clinics. Only 66 (26%) of the patients using alternative therapy notified their rheumatologist about their use. Thirty-six patients (14%) discontinued formal treatment at least on one occasion in order to receive alternative therapies, and only 8 (22%) notified their rheumatologist. Alternative therapy practitioners recommended discontinuation of conventional therapy on 57% of the occasions when formal treatments were discontinued. Mean expenditures per patient for fees to alternative therapy providers were equivalent to 28 days of the official minimum daily wage, and per patient costs for the remedies themselves were equivalent to 13 days of the official minimum daily wage. Patients who used alternative therapy in the past 12 months had lower education (7 versus 10 years, P < 0.001) and were slightly more disabled (1.7 versus 1.5, modified Health Assessment Questionnaire, P < 0.01). Conclusions. In this survey most patients used alternative therapies for the treatment of their rheumatic disease. Alternative therapies were costly and appeared to decrease adherence to conventional therapy. Health care providers should openly discuss the use of alternative therapy in patients with rheumatic diseases

Validation of the Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease Scale: A Scleroderma Patient-Centered Intervention Network cohort study

Objective: Self-management programs for patients with chronic illnesses, including rheumatic diseases, seek to enhance self-efficacy for performing health management behaviors. No measure of self-efficacy has been validated for patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc; scleroderma). The objective of this study was to assess the validity and internal consistency reliability of the Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease (SEMCD) scale in SSc. Methods: English-speaking SSc patients enrolled in the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Cohort who completed the SEMCD scale at their baseline assessment between March 2014 and June 2015 were included. Patients were enrolled from 21 sites in Canada, the US, and the UK. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to evaluate the factor structure of the SEMCD scale. Cronbach's alpha was calculated to assess internal consistency reliability. Hypotheses on the direction and magnitude of Pearson's correlations with psychological and physical outcome measures were formulated and tested to examine convergent validity. Results: A total of 553 patients were included. CFA supported the single-factor structure of the SEMCD scale (Tucker Lewis Index = 0.99, comparative fit index = 0.99, root mean square error of approximation = 0.10). Internal consistency was high (alpha = 0.93), and correlations with measures of psychological and physical functioning were moderate to large (|r| = 0.48-0.67, P < 0.001), confirming study hypotheses. Conclusion: Scores from the SEMCD scale are valid for measuring self-efficacy in patients with SSc, and results support using the scale as an outcome measure to evaluate the effectiveness of self-management programs in SSc