Inflammopharmacology

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 1–8 | Cite as

Population-based normative values for the Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC®) osteoarthritis index and the Australian/Canadian (AUSCAN) hand osteoarthritis index functional subscales

Research Article

Abstract

Aim

To develop age- and gender-specific normative values for the physical function subscales of the WOMAC® and AUSCAN Indices.

Methods

A scannable survey questionnaire capable of capturing WOMAC® and AUSCAN Index and demographic information was developed, pre-tested, and distributed to a stratified random sample of 24,000 members of the Australian general public generated by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC).

Results

Age- and gender-specific WOMAC® and AUSCAN normative values were estimated based on approximately 5,500 subjects. Age-related differences were noted at the subscale level. In general, disability increased with age for all items and both Indices.

Conclusions

Normative values provide opportunity for benchmarking the health status of individuals against their age- and gender-matched peers in the general population. These normative values provide unique opportunities, for using the WOMAC® and AUSCAN Indices in benchmarking applications, in both clinical practice and research.

Keywords

WOMAC® AUSCAN Normative values Health status measurement Osteoarthritis 

References

  1. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2009) http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/home/Seifa_entry_page
  2. Bellamy N (2005) The WOMAC Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis Indices: development, validation, globalization and influence on the development of the AUSCAN Hand Osteoarthritis Indices. Clin Exp Rheumatol 23(Suppl 39):148–153Google Scholar
  3. Bellamy N (2006) AUSCAN User guide III. The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia pp 1–20. www.auscan.org
  4. Bellamy N (2008a) Principles of outcome assessment. In: Hochberg MC, Silman AJ, Smolen JS, Weinblatt ME, Weisman MH (eds) Rheumatology, 4th edn. Elsevier, Philadelphia, pp 11–20Google Scholar
  5. Bellamy N (2008b) WOMAC® User guide IX. The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia pp 1–76. www.womac.org
  6. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt L (1988a) 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 15:1833–1840PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt L (1988b) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes following total hip or knee arthroplasty in osteoarthritis. J Orthop Rheumatol 1:95–108Google Scholar
  8. 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 in OMERACT III. J Rheumatol 24:799–802PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bellamy N, Kaloni S, Pope J, Coulter K, Campbell J (1998) Quantitative rheumatology: a survey of outcome measurement procedures in routine rheumatology outpatient practice in Canada. J Rheumatol 25:852–858PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bellamy N, Muirden KD, Brooks PM, Barraclough D, Tellus MM, Campbell J (1999) Quantitative rheumatology: a survey of outcome measurement procedures in routine rheumatology outpatient practice in Australia. J Rheumatol 26:1593–1599PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bellamy N, Campbell J, Haraoui B, Buchbinder R, Hobby K, Roth JH, MacDermid JC (2002a) Dimensionality and clinical importance of pain and disability in hand osteoarthritis: development of the Australian/Canadian (AUSCAN) Osteoarthritis Hand Index. Osteoarthr Cartil 10(11):855–862CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bellamy N, Campbell J, Haraoui B, Gerecz-Simon E, Buchbinder R, Hobby K, MacDermid JC (2002b) Clinimetric properties of the AUSCAN Osteoarthritis Hand Index: an evaluation of reliability, validity and responsiveness. Osteoarthr Cartil 10(11):863–869CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Bellamy N, Krupa D, Markind JE, Reicin AS, Malmstrom K (2004a) WOMAC 20, 50, 70 response levels in patients treated with Rofecoxib for osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil 12(Suppl B):S70Google Scholar
  14. Bellamy N, Krupa D, Markind JE, Reicin AS, Malmstrom K (2004b) Prevalence of patients with low intensity pain symptom severity states during treatment with rofecoxib and Ibuprofen for osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil 12(Suppl B):S69Google Scholar
  15. Bellamy N, Bell M, Goldsmith C, Pericak D, Walker V, Raynauld J-P, Torrance G, Tugwell P, Polisson R (2005) Evaluation of WOMAC 20, 50, 70 response criteria in patients treated with hylan G-F 20 for knee osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 64:881–885CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Bellamy N, Wilson C, for the REFLECT Study Group (2007a) International estimation of Minimum Clinically Important Improvement (MCII75): the reflect study. Int Med J 37(Suppl 2):A36Google Scholar
  17. Bellamy N, Bell MJ, Pericak D, Goldsmith CH, Torrance GW, Raynauld J-P, Walker V, Tugwell P, Polisson R (2007b) BLISS Index for analysing knee osteoarthritis trials data. J Clin Epidemiol 60:124–132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Bellamy N, Wilson C, for the REFLECT Study Group (2007c) International estimation of Patient Acceptable Symptom Severity (PASS75): the reflect study. Int Med J 37(Suppl 2):A36Google Scholar
  19. Bellamy E, Wilson C, Bellamy N (2009a) Osteoarthritis Measurement in Routine Rheumatology Outpatient Practice (OMIRROP) in Australia: a survey of practice style, instrument use, responder criteria and state-attainment criteria. J Rheumatol 36(5):1049–1055CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Bellamy N, Bell MJ, Pericak D, Goldsmith CH, Lee S, Maschio M, Raynauld J-P, Torrance GW, Tugwell P (2009b) BLISS Index using WOMAC Index detects between-group differences at low-intensity symptom states in osteoarthritis. J Clin Epidemiol. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.07.011
  21. Bowling A, Bond M, Jenkinson C, Lamping DL (1999) Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey questionnaire: which normative data should be used? Comparisons between norms provided by the Omnibus Survey in Britain, the Health Survey for England and the Oxford Health Survey. J Public Health Med 21(3):255–270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Brooks PM (2006) The burden of musculoskeletal disease: a global perspective. Clin Rheumatol 25(6):778–781CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Dougados M, LeClaire P, van der Heijde D, Bloch DA, Bellamy N, Altman RD (2000) Special article: response criteria for clinical trials on osteoarthritis of the knee and hip: a report of the Osteoarthritis Research Society International Standing Committee for clinical trials response criteria initiative. Osteoarthr Cartil 8(6):395–403CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Dworkin R, Turk D, Farrar J, Haythornthwaite JA, Jensen MP, Katz NP, Kerns RD, Stucki G, Allen RR, Bellamy N et al (2005) Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 113(1–2):9–19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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(11):2635–2641PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) (1998) In: Points to consider on clinical investigation of medicinal products used in the treatment of osteoarthritis, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  27. Krishnan E, Sokka T, Hakkinen A, Hubert H, Hannonen P (2004) Normative values for the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index. Arthritis Rheum 50(3):953–960CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Kvien TK, Zhang YZ, Nicols M, Dougados M, Podrebarac TA, Bellamy N (2007) Response and state-attainment criteria in hand OA: analyses from a placebo-controlled clinical trial of CRX-102, a novel synergistic combination therapy. Ann Rheum Dis 66(Suppl II):501Google Scholar
  29. Lybrand S, Bellamy N (2002) Impact of OARSI-OMERACT recommendations for outcome measurement on clinical practice: a 5 year reassessment. NZA-ARA Combined Scientific Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand, May 2002. Abstract Book, p 112Google Scholar
  30. Maheu E, Altman RD, Bloch DA, Doherty M, Hochberg M, Mannoni A, Punzi L, Spector T, Verbruggen G; Osteoarthritis Research Society International Hand OA Task Force, Carr A, Cicuttini F, Dreiser RL, Haraoui BP, Hart D, Pelletier JP, Ramonda R, Rovati L (2006) Design and conduct of clinical trials in patients with osteoarthritis of the hand: recommendations from a task force of the Osteoarthritis Research Society International. Osteoarthr Cartil 14(4):303–322Google Scholar
  31. Osteoarthritis Research Society (OARS) Task force report: design and conduct of clinical trials of patients with osteoarthritis: recommendations from a Task Force of the Osteoarthritis Research Society (1996) Osteoarthr Cartil 4:217–243Google Scholar
  32. 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 revisited. Osteoarthr Cartil 12:389–399CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. SPSS PASW version 17.0.2 (2009). SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL, USAGoogle Scholar
  34. Tubach F, Baron G, Ravaud P, Falissard B, Longeart I, Bombardier C, Felson D, van der Heijde D, Hochberg M, Bellamy N, Dougados M (2003) Evaluation of clinically relevant changes and states in symptomatic outcome variables in osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 7(62)(Suppl 1):276Google Scholar
  35. Tubach F, Ravaud P, Baron G, Falissard B, Logeart I, Bellamy N, Bombardier C, Felson DT, Hochberg MC, van der Heijde D, Dougados M (2005a) Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient-reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the Minimal Clinically Important Improvement. Ann Rheum Dis 64(1):29–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Tubach F, Ravaud P, Baron G, Falissard B, Logeart I, Bellamy N, Bombardier C, Felson DT, Hochberg MC, van der Heijde D, Dougados M (2005b) Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient-reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the Patient Acceptable Symptom State. Ann Rheum Dis 64(1):34–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Allen RR, Bellamy N et al (2003) Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 106(3):337–345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration (2006) Guidance for industry–patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm
  39. US Food and Drug Administration (1999) Guidance for industry: clinical development programs for drugs, devices and biological products intended for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), pp 1–9Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel/Switzerland 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre of National Research on Disability and Rehabilitation Medicine (CONROD), Level 1, Mayne Medical SchoolThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations