Screening for hip and knee osteoarthritis in the general population: predictive value of a questionnaire and prevalence estimates
- C H Roux1,
- A Saraux2,
- B Mazieres3,
- J Pouchot4,
- J Morvan2,
- B Fautrel5,
- J Testa6,
- P Fardellone7,
- A C Rat8,
- J Coste9,
- F Guillemin8,
- L Euller-Ziegler1,
- on behalf of the KHOALA Osteoarthritis Group
- 1Rheumatology Department, CHU Nice, Nice, France
- 2Unit of Rheumatology, Hôpital de la Cavale Blanche, CHU Brest, France
- 3Rheumatology Department, Hospital Larrey, CHU Toulouse, France
- 4Department of Internal Medicine, Hôpital européen Georges Pompidou, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France
- 5Rheumatology Department, CHU Paris, Paris, France
- 6Statistical Department, CHU Nice, Nice, France
- 7Rheumatology Department, CHU Amiens, Amiens, France
- 8Inserm CIC-EC, Nancy University, University Hospital, Nancy, France
- 9Statistical Department, CHU Cochin, Paris, France
- Dr C H Roux, Hospital l’Archet 1, Rheumatology Department, 242 Route de Saint Antoine de Ginestiere, 06200 Nice, France; roux101fr{at}yahoo.fr
- Accepted 17 November 2007
- Published Online First 12 December 2007
Abstract
Objective: To study the feasibility and validity of a two-step telephone screening procedure for symptomatic knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) in the general population.
Method: The screening questionnaire was based on signs and symptoms, previous diagnosis of OA and validated OA criteria. A random sample of telephone numbers was obtained and, at each number, one person aged 40–75 years was included. A physical examination and knee or hip radiographs were offered when the screen was positive. A sample of subjects with negative screens was also examined. The diagnosis of hip/knee OA was based on the American College of Rheumatology criteria for signs and symptoms and Kellgren–Lawrence radiographic stage 2 or greater. Prevalence rates were estimated with correction for the performance of the screening procedure.
Results: Of 1380 subjects, 479 had positive screens, among whom 109 were evaluated; symptomatic radiographic OA was found in 50 subjects, at the knee (n = 35) or hip (n = 20). Corrected prevalence estimates of symptomatic OA were 7.6% (6.4%–8.8%) for the knee and 5% (3.9%–6.1%) for the hip. The screening procedure had 87% (95% CI 79% to 95%) sensitivity and 92% (95% CI 91% to 93%) specificity for detecting knee OA and respectively 93% (95% CI 86% to 100%) and 93% (95% CI 92% to 94%) for hip OA.
Conclusion: This study establishes the feasibility of telephone screening for symptomatic knee/hip OA, which could be used for a nationwide prevalence study. Pain and previous OA diagnosis were the best items for detecting symptomatic OA.
Footnotes
-
Funding: This survey was supported by the Nice University Hospital, Nice, France.
-
Competing interests: None.
-
Ethics approval: Approved by local institutional review boards and the independent ethics committees of Nice, France.








