Clinical Rheumatology

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 231–241 | Cite as

A preliminary evaluation of the dimensionality and clinical importance of pain and disability in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee

  • N. Bellamy
  • W. W. Buchanan
Originals

Summary

Current methods of clinical assessment in osteoarthritis show a high degree of variability. By contrast, patients with rheumatoid arthritis may be evaluated using a number of standardised and validated indices. One hundred patients with primary osteoarthritis of the hip and knee were interviewed in order to determine the dimensionality of their discomfort and disability and to define the clinical importance of each component item. The symptomatology of osteoarthritis was captured by five pain, one stiffness, twentytwo physical, eight social and eleven emotional items. In spite of a high degree of variability in the frequency of involvement of the individual items, their clinical importance was similar both within as well as across dimensions. Further studies are indicated to determine the reliability, validity and responsiveness of each of the items identified as a prelude to developing a standardized method of assessing patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and knee.

Key words

Osteoarthritis Pain Disability Clinical Importance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baum, J. A review of the psychological aspects of rheumatic disease. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1982, 11, 352–361.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cumey, H.L.F. Osteoarthritis of the hip joint and sexual activity. Ann Rheum Dis. 1970, 29, 488–493.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lunghi, M.E., Miller, P.M., McQuillan, W.M. Psychological factors in osteoarthrosis of the hip. J Psychosom Res, 1978, 22, 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bellamy, N., Buchanan, W.W. Outcome measurement in osteoarthritis clinical trials: The case for standardisation. Clin Rheumatol, 1984, 3, 293–303.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Convery, F.R., Minteer, M.A., Amiel, D., Connett, K.L. Polyarticular disability: A functional assessment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 1977, 58, 494–499.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deniston, O.L., Jette, A. A functional status assessment instrument: Validation in an elderly population. Health Serv Res. 1980, 15, 21–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Doyle, D.V., Dieppe, P.A., Scott, J., Huskisson, E.C. An articular index for the assessment of osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 1981, 40, 75–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eberl, D.R., Fasching, V., Rahlafs, V., Schleyer, I., Wolfe, R. Repeatability and objectivity of various measurements in rheumatioid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1976, 19, 1278–1286.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Empire Rheumatism Council. Multicentre controlled trial comparing cortisone acetate and acetyl salicylic acid in the long-term treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 1955, 14, 353–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fries, J.F., Spitz, P., Kraines, R.G., Homan, H.R. Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1980, 23, 137–145.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jette, A.M. Functional capacity evaluation: An empirical approach. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1980, 61, 85–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jette, A.M. Functional status index: Reliability of a chronic disease evaluative instrument. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1980, 62, 395–401.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jette, A.M., Deniston, O.L. Interobserver reliability of a functional status instrument. J Chronic Dis. 1978, 31, 573–580.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Katz, S., Akpom, C.A. A measure of primary sociobiological functions. Int J Health Serv. 1976, 6, 493–507.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Katz, S., Downs, T.D., Cash, H.R., Grotz, R.C. Progress in development of the index of ADL. Gerontologist. 1970, 1, 20–30.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Katz, S., Ford, A.B., Moskiwitz, R.W., Jackson, B.A., Jaff, M.W. Studies of illness in the aged. The index of ADL: A standardised measure of biological and psychosomal function. JAMA. 1963, 914–919.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Keitel, W., Hoffman, H., Weber, G. Ermittlung der prozentualen Funktionsminderung der Gelenke durch einen Bewengungsfunkionstest in der Rheumatologie. Dtsch Gesundheitsw. 1971, 26, 1901–1903.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lansbury, J. A method for summation of the systemic indices of rheumatoid activity. Am J Med Sci. 1956, 232, 300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lansbury, J. Report of a three-year study on the systemic and articular indexes in rheumatoid arthritis — Theoretical and clinical considerations. Arthritis Rheum. 1958, 1, 505–522.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lansbury, J., Baier, H.N., McCracken, S. Statistical study of variation in systemic and articular indices. Arthritis Rheum. 1962, 5, 445–456.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lansbury, J., Mueller, E.E. A numerical method for summing up total deformity, Am J Med Sci. 1958, 235, 154.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee, P., Jasani, M.K. Dick, W.C., Buchanan, W.W. Evaluation of a functional index in rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol. 1973, 2, 71–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee, P., Webb, J., Anderson, J., Buchanan, W.W. Method of assessing therapeutic potential of antiinflammatory anti-rheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Br Med J 1973, 2, 685–688.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lequesne, M. European guidelines for clinical trials of new antirheumatic drugs. Eular Bulletin. 1980, 9 (Suppl 6), 171–175.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Meenan, R.F., Gertman, P.M., Mason, J.H. Measuring health status in arthritics. The arthritis impact measurement scales. Arthritis Rheum. 1980, 23, 146–152.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ritchie, D.M., Boyle, J.A., McInnes, J.M., Jasani, M.K., Dalakos, T.G., Grieveson, P., Buchanan, W.W. Clinical studies with and articular index for the assessment of joint tenderness in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. 1968, Q J Med. 147, 393–406.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Smythe, H.A., Helewa, A., Goldsmith, C.H. Independent assessor and pooled index as techniques for measuring treatment effects in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol, 1977, 4, 144–152.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Steinbrocker, O., Traeger, C.H., Batterman, R.C. Therapeutic criteria in rheumatoid arthritis. JAMA, 1949, 140, 659–662.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Taylor D. A table for the degree of involvement in chronic arthritis. Can Med Assoc J. 1977, 36, 608–610.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    The Co-operating Clinics Committee of the American Rheumatism Association. A seven-day variability study of 449 patients with peripheral rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1965, 8, 302–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tugwell, P.X., Bombardier, C., Chambers, L.W. MACTAR Functional assessment questionnaire. Monograph — McMaster University — Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, 1981.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chambers, L.W. McMaster Health Index Questionnaire (MHIQ). Monograph — McMaster University — Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics. 1980.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Moskowitz, R.W. Clinical and laboratory findings in osteoarthritis. In: Arthritis and Allied Conditions. Ed. McCarty, D.J. Philadelphia, Lea & Febiger, 1979, 1161–1180.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Melzack, R. Concepts of pain measurement. In: Pain Measurement and Assessment. Ed. Melzack, R. New York, Raven Press, 1985, 1–5.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    International classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. Geneva, World Health Organization. 1980, 7–174.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kremer, E.F., Block, A., Atkinson, J.H. Assessment of pain behaviour, factors that distort self-report. In: Pain Measurement and Assessment. Ed. Melzack, R. New York, Raven Press, 1985, 165–171.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Davis, G.C., Buchsbaum, M.S., Burney, W.E. Naloxone decreases diurnal variations in pain sensitivity and somatosensory-evoked potentials. Life Sci. 1978, 23, 1449–1459.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Simpson, H.W., Bellamy, N., Bohlen, J., Halberg, F. Double-blind field trial of a potential chronobiotic (Quiadon). Int J Chronobiol. 1973, 1, 287–311.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bellamy, N. Between-subject variability in response to antirheumatic drugs: Implications for clinical trials. Agents Actions. 1985, (In Press).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Melzack, R. The McGill pain questionnaire. In: Pain Measurement and Assessment. Ed. Melzack, R. New York, Raven Press, 1985, 41–48.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Brook, R.H., Ware, J.E., Davies-Avery, A., Stewart, A.L., Donald, C.A., Rogers, W.K., Williams, K.N., Johnston, S.A. Overview of adult health status measures fielded in Rand's health insurance study. Med Care, 1979, 17 (Suppl 7), 1–131.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Deyo, R.A. Measuring functional outcomes in therapeutic trials for chronic disease. Controlled Clinical Trials. 1984, 5, 223–240.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bellamy, N. The clinical evaluation of osteoarthritis in the elderly. In: Clinics in Rheumatic Diseases. Ed. Kean, W.F. Eastbourne, W.B. Saunders. 1986, (In Press).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Carmines, E.G., Zeller, R.A. Reliability and validity assessment. Beverley Hills, Sages Publications, 1979, 5–71.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Forman, M.D., Malamet, R., Kaplan, E. A survey of osteoarthritis of the knee in the elderly. J Rheumatol. 1983, 10, 282–287.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bellamy, N. Osteoarthritis — An evaluative index for clinical trials. M.Sc. Thesis, Hamilton, Canada, McMaster University. 100–104.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Bellamy
    • 1
    • 2
  • W. W. Buchanan
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of RheumatologyUniversity of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  2. 2.Department of RheumatologyMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations