Zeitschrift für Rheumatologie

, Volume 65, Issue 2, pp 139–143 | Cite as

Klinische Ergebnismessgrößen bei Arthrose der Hand- und Fingergelenke aus der Perspektive der Patienten

  • T. Stamm
  • K. Machold
  • D. Aletaha
  • G. Stucki
  • J. Smolen
Leitthema

Zusammenfassung

Arthrose ist eine der häufigsten Gelenkerkrankungen. Da sich die Forschungsaktivitäten der letzten Jahre vorwiegend auf die großen Gelenke, wie Hüfte und Knie, konzentriert haben, sind die wissenschaftlichen Resultate bezüglich der Hand- und Fingergelenke derzeit noch immer sehr limitiert. Um den Effekt einer therapeutischen Maßnahme zu messen oder auch Aussagen über den Verlauf der Erkrankung zu treffen, werden in der Rheumatologie üblicherweise Ergebnismessgrößen verwendet. Ergebnismessgrößen sind messbare Variablen, die sowohl aus der Sicht des Arztes/Angehörigen eines Gesundheitsberufes als auch aus der Sicht des Patienten definiert werden können. Das Ziel dieses Artikels ist es, klinische Ergebnisvariablen und die zugehörigen Instrumente, die derzeit für Patienten mit Arthrose der Hand- und Fingergelenke verwendet werden, darzustellen und zu evaluieren, inwieweit diese Ergebnisvariablen und Instrumente die Perspektive der Patienten abbilden.

Bei Patienten mit Arthrose der Hand- und Fingergelenke wird die Messung und Erfassung der folgenden Ergebnisvariablen von Experten empfohlen: Krankheitsaktivität und Ausmaß der Entzündung, Alltagsfunktion, Schmerz, Mobilität und Steifigkeit, sowie Deformität und ästhetische Veränderung. Für die meisten dieser Ergebnismessgrößen existieren entsprechende Instrumente, wobei viele dieser Instrumente die Perspektive der Patienten nicht in ausreichendem Maß reflektieren und eine geringe Reliabilität aufweisen, da keine standardisierten Erfassungsprotokolle existieren.

Schlüsselworter

Krankheitsaktivität Schmerz Ergebnismessgröße ICF Core Sets 

Clinical outcome measures in hand osteoarthritis from the patient perspective

Abstract

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common joint disease. While research activities in OA have concentrated on the knee and hip in recent years, knowledge and research results in the field of hand OA are still limited. In order to measure the effects of treatment or to obtain information on the course of a disease and the health status of a patient, outcome measures are commonly used in rheumatology. Such measures are variables which can be quantified and which represent either the perspective of health professionals or the perspective of patients or both. The aim of this article is to evaluate clinical outcome measures and corresponding instruments which are currently used for patients with hand OA, and to examine whether these measures and instruments represent the perspective of patients.

For hand OA, measurements of disease activity and inflammation, function and performance, pain, mobility and stiffness, deformity and aesthetic damage are recommended by experts. Corresponding instruments are available for most of these outcome measures, but these often do not sufficiently represent the perspective of the patients. Some instruments lack reliability because standardized protocols for measurement have not yet been developed.

Keywords

Disease activity Pain Outcome measures ICF core sets 

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Aletaha D, Smolen J (2005) The Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI): a review of their usefulness and validity in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 23 (Suppl 39): S100–S108PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aletaha D, Nell VP, Stamm T et al. (2005) Acute phase reactants add little to composite disease activity indices for rheumatoid arthritis: validation of a clinical activity score. Arthritis Res Ther 7:R796–R806CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Altman R, Alarcon G, Appelrouth D et al. (1990) The American College of Rheumatology criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis of the hand. Arthritis Rheum 33:1601–1610CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Backman C, Mackie H (1995) Arthritis hand function test: inter-rater reliability among self-trained raters. Arthritis Care Res 8:10–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bellamy N, Kirwan J, Boers M et al. (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 24:799–802PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bellamy N, Campbell J, Haraoui B et al. (2002 a) Clinimetric properties of the AUSCAN Osteoarthritis Hand Index: an evaluation of reliability, validity and responsiveness. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 10:863–869CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bellamy N, Campbell J, Haraoui B et al. (2002 b) Dimensionality and clinical importance of pain and disability in hand osteoarthritis: development of the Australian/Canadian (AUSCAN) Osteoarthritis Hand Index. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 10:855–862CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bogdan RC, Biklen SK (1998) Qualitative research for education. Allyn & Bacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carr A, Hewlett S, Hughes R et al. (2003) Rheumatology outcomes: the patient’s perspective. J Rheumatol 30:880–883PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cieza A, Ewert T, Üstün B et al. (2004) Development of ICF core sets for patients with chronic conditions. J Rehab Med 44 Suppl:9–11Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coenen M, Stamm TA, Cieza A et al. (Manuscript in preparation 2005) Comparing two qualitative methods: individual interviews with focus groups in patients with rheumatoid srthritisGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Creamer P, Hochberg MC (1997) Osteoarthritis. Lancet 350:503–508CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dreinhofer K, Stucki G, Ewert T et al. (2004) ICF core sets for osteoarthritis. J Rehabil Med 44 (Suppl):75–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dreiser RL, Maheu E, Guillou GB et al. (1995) Validation of an algofunctional index for osteoarthritis of the hand. Rev Rhum Engl Ed 62 (Suppl 1):43S–53SPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dreiser RL, Maheu E, Guillou GB (2000) Sensitivity to change of the functional index for hand osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 8 Suppl A:S25–S28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Duruoz MT, Poiraudeau S, Fermanian J et al. (1996) Development and validation of a rheumatoid hand functional disability scale that assesses functional handicap. J Rheumatol 23:1167–1172PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Falconer J, Hughes SL, Naughton BJ et al. (1991) Self report and performance-based hand function tests as correlates of dependency in the elderly. J Am Geriatr Soc 39:695–699CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Boers M et al. (1995) American College of Rheumatology. Preliminary definition of improvement in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 38:727–735CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fries JF (2004) New instruments for assessing disability: not quite ready for prime time. Arthritis Rheum 50:3064–3067CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fries JF, Spitz P, Kraines RG, Holman HR (1980) Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 23:137–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hewlett S (2003) Patients and clinicians have different perspectives on outcomes in arthritis. J Rheumatol 30:877–879PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hewlett S, Smith AP, Kirwan J (2001) Values for function in rheumatoid arthritis: patients, professionals and public. Ann Rheum Dis 60:928–933CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hochberg MC, Vignon E, Maheu E (2000) Session 2: clinical aspects. Clinical assessment of hand OA. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 8 Suppl A:S38–S40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jones E, Hanly JG, Mooney R et al. (1991) Strength and function in the normal and rheumatoid hand. J Rheumatol 18:1313–1318PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kirwan J, Heiberg T, Hewlett S et al. (2003) Outcomes from the patient perspective workshop at OMERACT 6. J Rheumatol 30:868–876PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kleven T, Russwurm H, Finsen V (1996) Tendon interposition arthroplasty for basal joint arthrosis. 38 thumbs followed for 4 years. Acta Orthop Scand 67:575–577CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kvale S (1996) Interviews — An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Sage, Newbury Park/CAGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kvien T, Heiberg T (2003) Patient perspective in outcome assessments — Perceptions or something more? J Rheumatol 30:873–876PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Law M, Baptiste S, McColl M et al. (1990) The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: an outcome measurement protocol for occupational therapy. Can J OccupTher 52:82–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Law M, Baptiste S, Carswell A et al. (1994) Canadian Occupational Performance Measure — Manual. The Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Leeb BF, Sautner J, Andel I, Rintelen B (2003) SACRAH: a score for assessment and quantification of chronic rheumatic affections of the hands. Rheumatology (Oxford) 42:1173–1178Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lozada CJ, Altman RD (2001) Management of osteoarthritis. In: McCarty DJ, Koopman WJ (eds) Arthritis and allied conditions: a textbook of rheumatology. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 2246–2263Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Meenan RF, Mason JH, Anderson JJ et al. (1992) AIMS2. Arthritis Rheum 35:1–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Petersson IF, Jacobsson LT (2002) Osteoarthritis of the peripheral joints. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 16:741–760CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Prevoo ML, ‚t Hof MA, Kuper HH et al. (1995) Modified disease activity scores that include twenty-eight-joint counts. Development and validation in a prospective longitudinal study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 38:44–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rosenthal G (1995) Erlebte und erzählte Lebensgeschichte. Campus, Frankfurt/MainGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sautner J, Andel I, Rintelen B, Leeb BF (2004) Development of the M-SACRAH, a modified, shortened version of SACRAH (Score for the Assessment and Quantification of Chronic Rheumatoid Affections of the Hands). Rheumatology (Oxford) 43:1409–1413Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schaeffer D, Müller-Mundt G (2002) Qualitative Gesundheits- und Pflegeforschung. Huber, BernGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Smolen JS, Breedveld FC, Schiff MH et al. (2003) A simplified disease activity index for rheumatoid arthritis for use in clinical trials. Rheumatology 42:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stamm TA, Machold KP, Smolen JS et al. (2002) Joint protection and home hand exercises improve hand function in patients with hand osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 47:44–49CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stamm TA, Wright J, Machold KP et al. (2004) Occupational balance of women with rheumatoid arthritis: a qualitative study. Musculoskeletal Care 2:101–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Stamm TA, Cieza A, Coenen M et al. (2005) Validating the comprehensive ICF core set for rheumatoid arthritis from the patient perspective: a qualitative study. Arthritis Rheum 53:431–439CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Stamm TA, Geyh S, Cieza A et al. (submitted 2005) Measuring functioning in patients with hand osteoarthritis: content comparison of questionnaires based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stucki G, Cieza A, Kostanjsek N et al. (2002) Application of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in clinical practice. Disabil Rehabil 24:281–282CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Van Gestel AM, Prevoo ML, ‚t Hof MA et al. (1996) Development and validation of the European League Against Rheumatism resonse criteria for rheumatoid arthritis. Comparison with the preliminary American College of Rheumatology and World Health Organization/International League Against Rheumatism criteria. Arthritis Rheum 39:34–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wengraf T (2001) Qualitative research interviewing: biographic narratives and semi-structured methods. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    WHO (2001) ICF — International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Stamm
    • 1
    • 3
    • 5
  • K. Machold
    • 1
  • D. Aletaha
    • 1
  • G. Stucki
    • 2
    • 3
  • J. Smolen
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1. Abt. für RheumatologieKlinik für Innere Medizin III, Medizinische Universität WienWien
  2. 2.Abt. für Physikalische Medizin und RehabilitationInstitut für Gesundheits- und Rehabilitationswissenschaft, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenMunchen
  3. 3.ICF Research Branch, WHO FIC Collaborating Center (DIMDI), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenMunchen
  4. 4.2. Medizinische Abt. — Abt. für RheumatologieKrankenhaus HietzingWien
  5. 5. Abt. für RheumatologieKlinik für Innere Medizin III, Medizinische Universität WienWien

Personalised recommendations