Pulsed electromagnetic energy treatment offers no clinical benefit in reducing the pain of knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review

Background The rehabilitation of knee osteoarthritis often includes electrotherapeutic modalities as well as advice and exercise. One commonly used modality is pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF). PEMF uses electro magnetically generated fields to promote tissue repair and healing rates. Its equivocal benefit over placebo treatment has been previously suggested however recently a number of randomised controlled trials have been published that have allowed a systematic review to be conducted. Methods A systematic review of the literature from 1966 to 2005 was undertaken. Relevant computerised bibliographic databases were searched and papers reviewed independently by two reviewers for quality using validated criteria for assessment. The key outcomes of pain and functional disability were analysed with weighted and standardised mean differences being calculated. Results Five randomised controlled trials comparing PEMF with placebo were identified. The weighted mean differences of the five papers for improvement in pain and function, were small and their 95% confidence intervals included the null. Conclusion This systematic review provides further evidence that PEMF has little value in the management of knee osteoarthritis. There appears to be clear evidence for the recommendation that PEMF does not significantly reduce the pain of knee osteoarthritis

Reproducibility and responsiveness of the Symptom Severity Scale and the hand and finger function subscale of the Dutch arthritis impact measurement scales (Dutch-AIMS2-HFF) in primary care patients with wrist or hand problems

BACKGROUND: To determine the clinimetric properties of two questionnaires assessing symptoms (Symptom Severity Scale) and physical functioning (hand and finger function subscale of the AIMS2) in a Dutch primary care population. METHODS: The first 84 participants in a 1-year follow-up study on the diagnosis and prognosis of hand and wrist problems completed the Symptom Severity Scale and the hand and finger function subscale of the Dutch-AIMS2 twice within 1 to 2 weeks. The data were used to assess test-retest reliability (ICC) and smallest detectable change (SDC, based on the standard error of measurement (SEM)). To assess responsiveness, changes in scores between baseline and the 3 month follow-up were related to an external criterion to estimate the minimal important change (MIC). We calculated the group size needed to detect the MIC beyond measurement error. RESULTS: The ICC for the Symptom Severity Scale was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.54–0.78). The SDC was 1.00 at individual level and 0.11 at group level, both on a 5-point scale. The MIC was 0.23, exceeding the SDC at group level. The group size required to detect a MIC beyond measurement error was 19 for the Symptom Severity Scale. The ICC for the hand and finger function subscale of the Dutch-AIMS2 was 0.62 (95% CI: 0.47–0.74). The SDC was 3.80 at individual level and 0.42 at group level, both on an 11-point scale. The MIC was 0.31, which was less than the SDC at group level. The group size required to detect a MIC beyond measurement error was 150. CONCLUSION: In our heterogeneous primary care population the Symptom Severity Scale was found to be a suitable instrument to assess the severity of symptoms, whereas the hand and finger function subscale of the Dutch-AIMS2 was less suitable for the measurement of physical functioning in patients with hand and wrist problems

Translation and validation study of the Persian version of the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales 2 (AIMS2) in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee

Background: The Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales 2 (AIMS2) has not been translated and validated for Persian-speaking patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. This was to provide a validated instrument to measure functional disability and health-related quality of life in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee in Iran. The aim of this study was to culturally adapt and validate the AIMS2 for Persian-speaking patients with osteoarthritis of the knee in Iran. Methods: A consecutive sample of patients with knee osteoarthritis were asked to complete the AIMS2, the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and four visual analog scales for pain, joint stiffness, patient's and physician's global assessment. Internal consistency and convergent validity were applied to examine psychometric properties of the AIMS2. In addition, 30 randomly selected patients were asked to complete the questionnaire two days later for the second time for test-retest reliability. Finally factor structure of the Persian AIMS2 was performed using the principal component factor analysis. Results: In all 230 patients were entered into the study. The mean (SD) age of the participants was 56.9 (8.7) years and the mean (SD) duration of disease was 7.2 (3.5) years. Cronbach's alpha coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the Persian AIMS2 scales ranged from 0.74 to 0.92 and 0.85 to 0.96, respectively. The correlation between most of the Persian AIMS2 scales and the physical and mental summary scores of the SF-36 and the visual analogue scales for pain, joint stiffness, patient's and physician's global assessment were statistically significant indicating a good convergent validity (p < 0.05). The results obtained from factor analysis indicated three latent factors that jointly accounted for 67.5% of the total variance. Conclusion: The results showed that the Persian AIMS2 had reasonably good internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and convergent validity in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. It is simple and easy to use and now can be applied in the future studies in Iran. However, its sensitivity to change needs still to be studied.We wish to express our gratitude to physicians who co-operated in the selection of the patients and patients who gave their time to complete the questionnaires. This research was supported by Sport Medicine Research Center (SMRC), Tehran University of Medical Sciences; grant No 85-01-53-3579

Health-related quality of life in adults reporting arthritis: analysis from the National Health Measurement Study

BackgroundArthritis is the leading cause of disability in the United States. We assess the generic health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) among a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults with and without self-reported arthritis.MethodsThe NHMS, a cross-sectional survey of 3,844 adults (35-89 years) administered EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2) and 3 (HUI3), SF-36v2™, Quality of Well-being Scale self-administered form (QWB-SA), and the Health and Activities Limitations index (HALex) to each respondent via a telephone interview. Weighted multiple linear regression was used to generate age-gender-arthritis-stratified unadjusted HRQOL means and means adjusted for sociodemographic, socioeconomic covariates and comorbidities by arthritis-age category.ResultsThe estimated population prevalence of self-reported arthritis was 31%. People with arthritis were more likely to be woman, older, of lower socioeconomic status, and had more self-reported comorbidities than were those not reporting arthritis. Adults with arthritis had lower HRQOL on six different indexes compared with adults without arthritis, with overall differences ranging from 0.03 (QWB-SA, age-group 65-74) to 0.17 (HUI3, age-group 35-44; all P-value &lt; .05).ConclusionArthritis in adults is associated with poorer HRQOL. We provide age-related reference values for six generic HRQOL measures in people with arthritis

Theoretical framework and methodological development of common subjective health outcome measures in osteoarthritis: a critical review

Subjective measures involving clinician ratings or patient self-assessments have become recognised as an important tool for the assessment of health outcome. The value of a health outcome measure is usually assessed by a psychometric evaluation of its reliability, validity and responsiveness. However, psychometric testing involves an accumulation of evidence and has recognised limitations. It has been suggested that an evaluation of how well a measure has been developed would be a useful additional criteria in assessing the value of a measure. This paper explored the theoretical background and methodological development of subjective health status measures commonly used in osteoarthritis research. Fourteen subjective health outcome measures commonly used in osteoarthritis research were examined. Each measure was explored on the basis of their i) theoretical framework (was there a definition of what was being assessed and was it part of a theoretical model?) and ii) methodological development (what was the scaling strategy, how were the items generated and reduced, what was the response format and what was the scoring method?). Only the AIMS, SF-36 and WHOQOL defined what they were assessing (i.e. the construct of interest) and no measure assessed was part of a theoretical model. None of the clinician report measures appeared to have implemented a scaling procedure or described the rationale for the items selected or scoring system. Of the patient self-report measures, the AIMS, MPQ, OXFORD, SF-36, WHOQOL and WOMAC appeared to follow a standard psychometric scaling method. The DRP and EuroQol used alternative scaling methods. The review highlighted the general lack of theoretical framework for both clinician report and patient self-report measures. This review also drew attention to the wide variation in the methodological development of commonly used measures in OA. While, in general the patient self-report measures had good methodological development, the clinician report measures appeared less well developed. It would be of value if new measures defined the construct of interest and, that the construct, be part of theoretical model. By ensuring measures are both theoretically and empirically valid then improvements in subjective health outcome measures should be possible

Translating the Dutch walking stairs, walking ability and rising and sitting questionnaires into German and assessing their concurrent validity with VAS measures of pain and activities in daily living

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Dutch Walking Stairs, Walking Ability and Rising and Sitting Questionnaires are three validated instruments to measure physical activity and limitations in daily living in patients with lower extremity disorders living at home of which no German equivalents are available. Our scope was to translate the Walking Stairs, Walking Ability and Rising and Sitting Questionnaires into German and to verify its concurrent validity in the two domains pain and activities in daily living by comparing them with the corresponding measures on the Visual Analogue Scale.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We translated the Walking Stairs, Walking Ability and Rising and Sitting Questionnaires according to published guidelines. Demographic data and validity were assessed in 52 consecutive patients with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome 1 of the lower extremity. Information on age, duration of symptoms, type of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome 1 and type of initiating event were obtained. We assessed the concurrent validity in the two domains pain and activities in daily living by comparing them with the corresponding measures on the Visual Analogue Scale.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found that variability in the German Walking Stairs, Walking Ability and Rising and Sitting Questionnaires was largely explained by measures of pain and activities in daily living on the Visual Analogue Scale.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our study shows that the domains pain and activities in daily living are properly represented in the German versions of the Walking Stairs, Walking Ability and Raising and Sitting Questionnaires. We would like to propagate their use in clinical practice and research alike.</p

The North Staffordshire Osteoarthritis Project – NorStOP: Prospective, 3-year study of the epidemiology and management of clinical osteoarthritis in a general population of older adults

BACKGROUND: The clinical syndrome of joint pain and stiffness in older people is the commonest cause of disability and health care consultation in this age group. Yet there have been few prospective studies of its course over time and its impact on personal and social life. We plan a cohort study in the general population aged 50 years and over to determine the course and prognosis of hand, hip, knee and foot pain, and the impact of these syndromes on participation levels and health care use. METHODS: All patients aged 50 years and over registered with 3 local general practices are to be recruited to a population-based cohort study through the use of a two-stage mailing process. Participants will initially complete a "Health Survey" questionnaire. This will collect information on several areas of life including socio-demographics, general health, physical function, participation, and bodily pain. Those who state that they have experienced any hand problem or any pain in their hands, hips, knees, or feet in the previous 12 months, and also give permission to be re-contacted, will be mailed a "Regional Pains Survey" questionnaire which collects detailed information on the four selected body regions (hand, hips, knees, feet). Follow-up data for the three-year period subsequent to cohort recruitment will be collected through two sources: i) general practice medical records and ii) repeat mailed survey

Sensitivity to change of the Neck Pain and Disability Scale

The Neck Pain and Disability Scale (NPAD) is a 20-item instrument to measure neck pain and related disability. The aim of this study was to assess sensitivity to change of the NPAD. A total of 411 participants from 15 general practices in the middle of Germany completed a multidimensional questionnaire including the German version of the NPAD and self-reported demographic and clinical information. Sensitivity to change was analysed by linear regression analysis of the NPAD at follow-up and educational level, age class, depression, anxiety, and deficits in social support, respectively, and by Pearson’s correlation analyses between mean change in NPAD at follow-up and mean change in prognostic markers. Those having more than basic education (regression coefficient −7.2, p < 0.001) and/or being in a younger age class (−2.9, p = 0.020) consistently reported significantly lower average NPAD scores at follow-up compared to those with basic education and/or a older age class. In contrast, those who were classified to be depressed (regression coefficient 2.1, p < 0.001), anxious (1.9, p < 0.001), or having deficits in social support (5.5, p = 0.004) reported significantly higher NPAD scores. Change in depression, anxiety, and social support scale between baseline and follow-up was significantly correlated with change in the NPAD score. Hence, these data are in the direction anticipated across all baseline factors investigated. In conclusion, the NPAD seems to be a sensitive measure for use in clinical practice and future studies of neck pain and related disability