Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Performance of global assessments of hip, knee, and back symptom change

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Rheumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this study is to compare patients’ global assessments of change in knee, hip, and back symptoms with actual changes over time in pain, function, and radiographic severity. The participants (n = 894, 80% female, mean age = 66 years) completed two assessments (mean of 4 years apart) as part of a study on the genetics of generalized osteoarthritis. At both assessments, participants completed the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC), and radiographic severity was assessed for knees, hips, and low back. At the second assessment, participants described changes in knee, hip, and low back symptoms as worse, better, same, or never had symptoms. Analysis of covariance models examined mean changes in WOMAC scores and radiographic severity according to categories of the global assessment measures. Statistical significance was examined for linear trend. Mean WOMAC total, pain, and function scores decreased (indicating improvement) among participants who indicated joint symptoms were better, showed little change among those who reported symptoms were the same/never had symptoms, and increased among those who reported symptoms were worse. For all analyses except the comparison of WOMAC pain change according to global assessment of low back symptom change, there was a statistically significant linear trend (p < 0.05). Patterns were similar for changes in radiographic severity, but the tests of linear trend were not statistically significant. Results support the concordance of these global assessments of joint symptom change with actual changes in self-reported symptoms. These global assessments may be useful for assessing change over time when baseline data are unavailable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW (1988) 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 15:1833–1840

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bellamy N, Kirwan J, Boers M, Brooks P, Strand V, Tugwell P, Altman R, Brandt K, Dougados M, Lequesne M (1997) Recommendations for a core set of outcome measures for future phase III clinical trials in knee, hip, and hand osteoarthritis. Consensus development at OMERACT III. J Rheumatol 24:799–802

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Pham T, van der Heijde D, Altman RD, Anderson JJ, Bellamy N, Hochberg M, Simon L, Strand V, Woodworth T, Dougados M (2004) OMERACT-OARSI initiative: Osteoarthritis Research Society International set of responder criteria for osteoarthritis clinical trials. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 12:389–399

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Chevalier X, Mejjad O, Babini S (2000) Methodology for the assessment of treatments in hand osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis & Cartilage 8 (Supplement A):S70-S72

  5. Lequesne MG, Maheu E (2000) Methodology of clinical trials in hand osteoarthritis: conventional and proposed tools. Osteoarthritis & Cartilage 8 (Suppl. A):S64-S69

  6. Tubach F, Ravaud P, Baron G, Falissard B, Logeart I, Bellamy N, Bombardier C, Felson DT, Hochberg MC, van der Heijde D, Dougados M (2005) Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement. Ann Rheum Dis 64:29–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hoeksma HL, van den Ende CH, Breedveld FC, Ronday HK, Dekker J (2005) A comparison of the OARSI response criteria with patient's global assessment in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip treated with a non-pharmacological intervention. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 14:77–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ehrich EW, Davies GM, Watson DJ, Bolognese JA, Seidenberg BC, Bellamy N (2000) Minimal perceptible clinical improvement with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index questionnaire and global assessments in patients with osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol 27:2635–2641

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Allen KD, Jordan JM, Renner JB, Kraus VB (2006) Relationship of global assessment of change to AUSCAN and pinch and grip strength among individuals with hand osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 14:1281–1287

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bellamy N, Campbell J, Haraoui B, Buchbinder R, Hobby K, Roth JH, MacDermid JC (2002) Dimensionality and clinical importance of pain and disability in hand osteoarthritis: development of the Australian/Canadian (AUSCAN) osteoarthritis hand index. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 10:855–862

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bellamy N, Campbell J, Haraoui B, Buchbinder R, MacDermid J, Roth J (1997) Development of the Australian/Canadian (AUSCAN) osteoarthritis (OA) hand index. Arthritis Rheum 40:S110

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kraus VB, Jordan JM, Doherty M, Wilson AG, Moskowitz R, Hochberg M, Loeser R, Hooper M, Renner JB, Crane MM, Hastie P, Versani S, Sundseth S, Atif U (2007) The genetics of generalized osteoarthritis (GOGO) study: study design and evaluation of osteoarthritis phenotypes. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 15:120–127

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kraus VB, Li YJ, Martin ER, Jordan JA, Renner JB, Doherty M, WIlson GG, Moskowitz R, Hochberg M, Loeser R, Sundseth S (2004) Articular hypermobility is a protective factor for hand osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 50:2178–2183

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH (1989) Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10:407–415

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. McConnell S, Kolopack P, Davis AM (2001) The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC): a review of its utility and measurement properties. Arthritis Rheum 45:453–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Peterfy C, Li J, Saim S, Duryea J, Lynch J, Miaux Y, Yu W, Genant HK (2003) Comparison of fixed-flexion positioning with fluoroscopic semi-flexed positioning for quantifying radiographic joint-space width in the knee: test-retest reproducibility. Skeletal Radiol 32:128–132

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kellgren J, Lawrence J (1957) Radiologic assessment of osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 16:494–502

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Wolfe F (1999) Determinants of WOMAC function, pain and stiffness scores: evidence for the role of low back pain, symptom counts, fatigue and depression in osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia. Rheumatology 38:355–361

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Arden N, Nevitt MC (2006) Osteoarthritis: epidemiology. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 20:3–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hunter DJ, McDougall JJ, Keefe FJ (2008) The symptoms of osteoarthritis and the genesis of pain. Rheum Dis Clin N Am 34:623–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chatman AB, Hyams SP, Neel JM, Binkley JM, Stratford PW, Schomberg A, Stabler M (1997) The Patient-Specific Functional Scale: measurement properties in patients with knee dysfunction. Phys Ther 77:820–829

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kopec JA, Esdaile JM, Abrahamowicz M, Abenhaim L, Wood-Dauphinee S, Lamping DL, Williams JI (1995) The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: measurement properties. Spine 20:341–352

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Linton SJ, Melin L (1982) The accuracy of remembering chronic pain. Pain 13:281–285

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Herrmann D (1995) Reporting current, past, and changed health status: what we now about distortion. Med Care 33:AS94–AS94

    Google Scholar 

  25. Stone AA, Broderick JE, Kaell AT, DelesPaul PA, Porter LE (2000) Does the peak-end phenomenon observed in laboratory pain studies apply to real-world pain in rheumatoid arthritis? J Pain 1:212–217

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL, Guyatt GH (1998) Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part I. Phys Ther 78:1186–1196

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Menzel P, Dolan P, Richardson J, Olsen JA (2002) The role of adaptation to disability and disease in health state valuation: a preliminary normative analysis. Soc Sci Med 55:2149–2158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding support and acknowledgements

This study was supported by a grant from GlaxoSmithKline. This study was performed in part, at the Duke General Clinical Research Unit, funded by NIH MO1-RR-30, National Center for Research Resources. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Disclosures

None

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kelli D. Allen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Allen, K.D., Jordan, J.M., Doherty, M. et al. Performance of global assessments of hip, knee, and back symptom change. Clin Rheumatol 30, 331–338 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-010-1536-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-010-1536-x

Keywords

Navigation