Article Text

PDF
OP0200-HPR How many subjective measurement tools are needed in knee osteoarthritis assessment?
  1. L. Martin-Martin1,
  2. C. Magro-Checa2,
  3. C. Valenza1,
  4. J.-C. Caracuel-Martinez3,
  5. Y. Castellote-Caballero3,
  6. M. Fajardo-Rodriguez4,
  7. G. Valenza1
  8. and Innovacion, Monitorizacion y Seguimiento en Fisioterapia, Terapia Ocupacional y Biomedicina
  1. 1Physiotherapy, University of Granada
  2. 2Rheumatology, Hospital Universitario San Cecilo
  3. 3Fisioterapia, Hospital Virgen de las Nieves
  4. 4Fisioterapia, Hospital Universitario San Cecilo, Granada, Spain

Abstract

Background Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common arthritis worldwide. OA ischaracterized by erosion and loss of articular cartilage accompanied by hypertrophic changes in neighboring bone that result in pain, stiffness, and gradual deterioration of mobility1. Nowadays is the most common cause of physical disability among older patients. Therefore, different instruments have been developed to evaluate the impact of OA on functioning and quality of life of patients, among them EQ-5D and WOMAC2

Objectives To determine the association and correlation among common subjective measuring toolsfor knee osteoarthritis: EQ, WOMAC and VAS

Methods 120 patients with radiologically confirmed knee osteoarthritis were evaluated with Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain, Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) for functional status, and EQ-5D for Health related quality of life. That measures werecompared and the concordance (Kappa Index) among the three guides calculated

Results An 80% of the sample were women, mean (SD) age 64,11 (10,361) and BMI 31,40 kg/m2 (5,3). Radiographic severity mean (SD) was 2, 63 (0,685) and 75% had more affected joints besides knee. Mean (SD) standardized tools scores were: EVA 6,46 (2,3 SD); EQ-5D 0,58 (0,23); EQ-5D VAS 56,6 (16,9); WOMAC pain 8,97 (3,7); WOMAC stiffness 3 (2); WOMAC function 29,5 (12,8) and WOMAC global 41,5 (16,86). People who reported higher scores on EVA, did the same in pain, function and global areas of WOMAC and had worse scores in quality of life instrument (EQ-5D) likewise. EQ-5D and WOMAC had also a significant association

Conclusions The high degree of association between WOMAC and EQ suggests that only one of them would be enough to get general health status data. EVA was mismatched respect to the others instruments nevertheless, so it could be useful variable to add information. We would need inquireif the different point in time which every tool takes in account to collect patient information influences these results

  1. Sevick MA, Miller GD, Loeser RF, Williamson JD, Messier SP

  2. Xie F, Pullenayegum EM, Li SC, Hopkins R, Thumboo J, Lo NNValue Health

Disclosure of Interest None Declared

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.