Advertisement

Clinical Rheumatology

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 264–266 | Cite as

Rheumatoid arthritis: A commonly misused diagnosis by the general population

  • I. T. Gram
  • T. Riise
  • Y. Honda
Originals
  • 28 Downloads

Summary

The purpose of this study was to explore what a young general population include when they answer questions concerning the diagnosis rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Altogether 14,420 subjects answered questionnaires concerning disease history, living habits and musculoskeletal pain. They were also asked specifically if they, or any close relative, had RA. One hundred and sixteen (1.6%) men and 115 (1.6%) women reported that they had the disease. Altogether 14 (12%) men and 23 (20%) women of those answering “yes” to the RA question, were found to have the disease verified according to their hospital records. Fifty-five (25%) of the subjects who reported to have RA, were classified in their hospital records as having other defined rheumatic diseases. Our study indicates that when the general population refers to the diagnosis of RA, they include most defined rheumatic diseases as well as unspecified arthralgia. We find it interesting that such a substantial number of young people report they have this serious disease. We therefore recommend that other measures should be used or used in addition to mailed questionnaires when exploring the prevalence of RA.

Key words

Rheumatoid Arthritis Prevalence Self-reporting Mailed Questionnaires 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arnett FC, Edworthy SM, Bloch DA et al. The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1988;31:315–24.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Colditz GA, Martin P, Stampfer MJ et al. Validation of questionnaire information on risk factors and disease outcome in a prospective cohort study of women. Am J Epidemiol 1986;123:894–900.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Midthjell K, Holmen J, Bjørndal A, Lund-Larsen PG. Is questionnaire information valid in the study of a chronic disease such as diabetes? The Nord-Trøndelag Diabetes Study. J Epidemiol Community Health 1992;46:537–42.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lyons RA, Lo SV, Littlepage BNC. Comparative health status of patients with 11 common illnesses in Wales. J Epidemiol Community Health 1994;48:388–90.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thelle DS, Arnesen E, Førde OH. The Tromsø heart study: Does coffee raise serum cholesterol? N Engl J Med 1983;308:1454–7.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greenland S, Robins JM. Estimation of a Common Effect Parameter from sparse follow-up data. Biometrics 1985;41:55–68.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kavli G, Førde OH, Arnesen E, Stenvold SE. Psoriasis: familial predisposition and environmental factors. BMJ 1985;291:999–1000.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hochberg MC. Changes in the Incidence and Prevalence of Rheumatoid Arthritis in England and Wales, 1970–1982. Semin Arthritis Rheum 1990;19:294–302.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hochberg MC, Spector TD. Epidemiology of rheumatoid arthritis: Update. Epidemiologic Reviews 1990;12:247–52.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kvien T, Glennås A, Knudsrød OG, Smedstad LM. The validity of self-reported diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis: Results from a population survey followed by clinical examination. J Rheumatol 1996;23: 1866–71.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Clinical Rheumatology 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. T. Gram
    • 1
  • T. Riise
    • 1
  • Y. Honda
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Community MedicineUniversity of TromsøTromsoNorway
  2. 2.The National Institute for Environmental StudiesIbarakiJapan

Personalised recommendations