Knee braces for knee osteoarthritis: A scoping review and narrative synthesis of interventions in randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and synthesise the content of knee bracing interventions in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of knee osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: In this scoping review, three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane) were searched up to 10th June 2024. Nineteen previous systematic reviews of knee bracing for knee OA and four recent international clinical practice guidelines were also hand searched. Identified studies were screened for eligibility by two independent reviewers. Information on bracing interventions was extracted from included RCT reports, informed by Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) guidelines. Data were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: Thirty-one RCTs testing 47 different bracing interventions were included. Braces were broadly grouped as valgus/varus, patellofemoral, sleeve, neutral hinged, or control/placebo knee braces. Brace manufacturer and models varied, as did amount of recommended brace use. Only three interventions specifically targeted brace adherence. Information on brace providers, setting, number of treatment sessions, and intervention modification over time was poorly reported. Adherence to brace use was described for 32 (68%) interventions, most commonly via self-report. Several mechanisms of action for knee braces were proposed, broadly grouped as biomechanical, neuromuscular, and psychological. CONCLUSIONS: Many different knee brace interventions have been tested for knee OA, with several proposed mechanisms of action, a lack of focus on adherence, and a lack of full reporting. These issues may be contributing to the heterogeneous findings and inconsistent guideline recommendations about the clinical effectiveness of knee bracing for knee OA to date.

The SelfSTarT intervention for low back pain patients presenting to first contact physiotherapists: A mixed methods service evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Globally, back pain is the leading cause of years of disability. In the United Kingdom, over 20 million people live with musculoskeletal (MSK) pain, with low back pain being one of the most common causes. National strategies promote self-management and the use of digital technologies to empower populations. AIMS: To evaluate the uptake and impact of providing the SelfSTart approach (STarT Back and SelfBACK App) when delivered by a First Contact Physiotherapist (FCP) to people presenting with low back pain in primary care. METHODS: Patients presenting with a new episode of low back pain underwent routine assessment and completion of a STarT Back questionnaire. Patients with low/medium scores were offered the SelfBACK App. A control population was provided by the MIDAS-GP study. Patient Experience, outcome measures, healthcare utilisation and retention were captured through the app and clinical systems (EMIS). Interviews with five FCPs explored the experiences of using the SelfSTart approach. RESULTS: SelfSTarT was taken up by almost half (48%) of those to whom it was offered. Compared to MIDAS-GP, users were more likely to be younger, male, in work, and with higher health literacy. SelfSTarT users reported significant improved experiences relating to receiving an agreed care plan and receiving sufficient information. There were no significant differences in treatments offered. FCPs were positive about the app and felt it had value but wanted feedback on patient progress. They recognised that a digital solution would not be suitable for all. CONCLUSION: This approach offers an opportunity to empower and support self-management, using robustly evaluated digital technology.

The OARSI Joint Effort Initiative: Priorities for osteoarthritis management program implementation and research 2024-2028.

Objective: The Joint Effort Initiative (JEI) is an international collaboration of clinicians, researchers, and consumer organisations with a shared vision of improving the implementation of osteoarthritis management programs (OAMPs). This study aimed to identify JEI's future priorities and guide direction. Design: A two-part international survey to prioritise topics of importance to our membership and research stakeholders. Survey one presented a list of 40 topics under 5 themes. Consenting participants were asked to choose their top three topics in each theme. A short list of 25 topics was presented in survey two. Participants were asked to rank the importance (100-point NRS scale, 100 â€‹= â€‹highest priority). Response frequency (median, IQR) was used to rank the top priorities by theme. Results: Ninety-five participants completed survey one (61% female, 48% clinicians) and 57 completed survey two. The top ranked topic/s were:i. Promotion and advocacy: support training for health professionals (median 85, IQR 24).ii. Education and training: incorporating behaviour change into OAMPs (80, 16), advanced OA skills (80, 30), and integration of OA education into clinical training (80, 36).iii. Improving OAMPs delivery: regular updates on changes to best-evidence OA care (84, 24).iv. Future research: improve uptake of exercise, physical activity, and weight-loss (89, 16).v. Enhancing relationships, alliances, and shared knowledge: promote research collaborations (81, 30), share challenges and opportunities for OAMP implementation (80, 23). Conclusions: These topics will set the JEI's research and collaboration agenda for the next 5 years and stimulate ideas for others working in the field.

Advanced Practice Physiotherapists and the implementation of the JIGSAW-E model for the management of osteoarthritis in Scottish primary care settings: a qualitative case study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the acceptability, barriers and enablers of NICE guidelines for osteoarthritis in the Scottish primary care setting using the Joint Implementation of Guidelines for Osteoarthritis in Western Europe (JIGSAW-E) model and investigate the role of Advanced Physiotherapy Practitioners (APPs) in providing evidence-based care. DESIGN: A qualitative case study comprised of semi-structured interviews followed by a workshop with participants. SETTING: 10 Scottish primary care practices. PARTICIPANTS: Six general practitioners (GPs) and eight APPs were interviewed. Twenty-three practitioners attended the workshop including 22 physiotherapists and one GP. RESULTS: While both GPs and APPs recognised the need to improve and standardise osteoarthritis care delivery, this study found that APPs were better situated to implement the evidence-based model. Barriers to implementation included lack of time for training, limited appointment time for GPs to consult and discuss medication use with patients, limitation of disease specific guidelines for patients with complex multimorbidity, and system-based barriers such as electronic data collection and high staff turnover. The key enabler was practitioners' motivation to provide optimal, standardised quality care for osteoarthritis. To increase acceptance, ownership and usability for both practitioners and patients, the JIGSAW-E model materials required adaptation to the local context. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence that the JIGSAW-E model is acceptable in Scottish primary care. Furthermore, the evolving roles of GPs and APPs within multidisciplinary primary care teams provides a platform to implement the JIGSAW-E model, where APPs are well placed to provide leadership and training in the delivery of evidence-based care for osteoarthritis.

Comparison of reliability, construct validity and responsiveness of the IPAQ-SF and PASE in adults with osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the measurement properties of two commonly used self-report physical activity (PA) measures: the International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form (IPAQ-SF) and the Physical Activity Scale for the elderly (PASE) in adults with osteoarthritis. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the MOSAICS cluster randomised controlled trial baseline and 3-month follow-up questionnaires, total scores and subdomains of the IPAQ-SF and PASE were compared. Intra-class correlations (ICC) were used to assess test-retest reliability, measurement error was assessed using standard error of measurement (SEM), smallest detectable change (SDC) and 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Responsiveness was assessed using effect size (ES), standard responsive measurement (SRM) and response ratio (RR). RESULTS: There was moderate correlation (r = 0.56) between the total IPAQ-SF scores (score ranges 0-16,398) and the total PASE scores (score ranges 0-400). Subdomain correlations were also moderate (ranges 0.39-0.57). The PASE showed greater reliability compared to the IPAQ-SF (ICC = 0.68; 0.61-0.74 95% CI and ICC = 0.64; 0.55-0.72, respectively). Measurement errors in both measures were large: PASE SEM = 46.7, SDC = 129.6 and 95% LoA ranges = -117 to 136, the IPAQ-SF SEM = 3532.2 METS-1 min-1 week , SDC = 9790.8 and 95% LoA ranges = -5222 to 5597. Responsiveness was poor: ES -0.14 and -0.16, SRM -0.21 and -0.21, and RR 0.12 and 0.09 for the IPAQ-SF and PASE, respectively. DISCUSSION: The IPAQ-SF and PASE appear limited in reliability, measurement error and responsiveness. Researchers and clinicians should be aware of these limitations, particularly when comparing different levels of PA and monitoring PA levels changes over time in those with osteoarthritis.

Development of a core capability framework for qualified health professionals to optimise care for people with osteoarthritis: an OARSI initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Develop a generic trans-disciplinary, skills-based capability framework for health professionals providing care for people with OA. DESIGN: e-Delphi survey. An international inter-professional Delphi Panel (researchers; clinicians; consumer representatives) considered a draft framework (adapted from elsewhere) of 131 specific capabilities mapped to 14 broader capability areas across four domains (A: person-centred approaches; B: assessment, investigation and diagnosis; C: management, interventions and prevention; D: service and professional development). Over three rounds, the Panel rated their agreement (Likert or numerical rating scales) on whether each specific capability in Domains B and C was essential (core) for all health professionals when providing care for all people with OA. Those achieving consensus (≥80% of Panel) rating of ≥ seven out of ten (Round 3) were retained. Generic domains (A and D) were included in the final framework and amended based on Panel comments. RESULTS: 173 people from 31 countries, spanning 18 disciplines and including 26 consumer representatives, participated. The final framework comprised 70 specific capabilities across 13 broad areas i) communication; ii) person-centred care; iii) history-taking; iv) physical assessment; v) investigations and diagnosis; vi) interventions and care planning; vii) prevention and lifestyle interventions; viii) self-management and behaviour change; ix) rehabilitative interventions; x) pharmacotherapy; xi) surgical interventions; xii) referrals and collaborative working; and xiii) evidence-based practice and service development). CONCLUSION: Experts agree that health professionals require an array of skills in person-centred approaches; assessment, investigation and diagnosis; management, interventions and prevention; and service and professional development to provide optimal care for people with OA.

Evidence flowers: An innovative, visual method of presenting "best evidence" summaries to health professional and lay audiences.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Barriers to dissemination and engagement with evidence pose a threat to implementing evidence-based medicine. Understanding, retention, and recall can be enhanced by visual presentation of information. The aim of this exploratory research was to develop and evaluate the accessibility and acceptability of visual summaries for presenting evidence syntheses with multiple exposures or outcomes to professional and lay audiences. METHODS: "Evidence flowers" were developed as a visual method of presenting data from 4 case scenarios: 2 complex evidence syntheses with multiple outcomes, Cochrane reviews, and clinical guidelines. Petals of evidence flowers were coloured according to the GRADE evidence rating system to display key findings and recommendations from the evidence summaries. Application of evidence flowers was observed during stakeholder workshops. Evaluation and feedback were conducted via questionnaires and informal interviews. RESULTS: Feedback from stakeholders on the evidence flowers collected from workshops, questionnaires, and interviews was encouraging and helpful for refining the design of the flowers. Comments were made on the content and design of the flowers, as well as the usability and potential for displaying different types of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence flowers are a novel and visually stimulating method for presenting research evidence from evidence syntheses with multiple exposures or outcomes, Cochrane reviews, and clinical guidelines. To promote access and engagement with research evidence, evidence flowers may be used in conjunction with other evidence synthesis products, such as (lay) summaries, evidence inventories, rapid reviews, and clinical guidelines. Additional research on potential adaptations and applications of the evidence flowers may further bridge the gap between research evidence and clinical practice.

Clinical course and prognostic factors across different musculoskeletal pain sites: A secondary analysis of individual patient data from randomised clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has identified similar prognostic factors in patients with musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions regardless of pain presentation, generating opportunities for management based on prognosis rather than specific pain presentation. METHODS: Data from seven RCTs (2483 participants) evaluating a range of primary care interventions for different MSK pain conditions were used to investigate the course of symptoms and explore similarities and differences in predictors of outcome. The value of pain site for predicting changes in pain and function was investigated and compared with that of age, gender, social class, pain duration, widespread pain and level of anxiety/depression. RESULTS: Over the initial three months of follow-up, changes in mean pain intensity reflected an improvement, with little change occurring after this period. Participants with knee pain due to osteoarthritis (OA) showed poorer long-term outcome (mean difference in pain reduction at 12 months -1.85, 95% CI -2.12 to -1.57, compared to low back pain). Increasing age, manual work, longer pain duration, widespread pain and increasing anxiety/depression scores were significantly associated with poorer outcome regardless of pain site. Testing of interactions showed some variation between pain sites, particularly for knee OA, where age, manual work and pain duration were most strongly associated with outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some differences in prognostic factors for trial participants with knee OA who were older and had more chronic conditions, similarity of outcome predictors across regional MSK pain sites provides evidence to support targeting of treatment based on prognostic factors rather than site of pain. SIGNIFICANCE: Individual patient data analysis of trials across different regional musculoskeletal pain sites was used to evaluate course and prognostic factors associated with pain and disability. Overall, similarity of outcome predictors across these different pain sites supports targeting of treatment based on prognostic factors rather than pain site alone.

Implementing core NICE guidelines for osteoarthritis in primary care with a model consultation (MOSAICS): a cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of a model osteoarthritis consultation, compared with usual care, on physical function and uptake of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) osteoarthritis recommendations, in adults ≥45 years consulting with peripheral joint pain in UK general practice. METHOD: Two-arm cluster-randomised controlled trial with baseline health survey. Eight general practices in England. PARTICIPANTS: 525 adults ≥45 years consulting for peripheral joint pain, amongst 28,443 population survey recipients. Four intervention practices delivered the model osteoarthritis consultation to patients consulting with peripheral joint pain; four control practices continued usual care. The primary clinical outcome of the trial was the SF-12 physical component score (PCS) at 6 months; the main secondary outcome was uptake of NICE core recommendations by 6 months, measured by osteoarthritis quality indicators. A Linear Mixed Model was used to analyse clinical outcome data (SF-12 PCS). Differences in quality indicator outcomes were assessed using logistic regression. RESULTS: 525 eligible participants were enrolled (mean age 67.3 years, SD 10.5; 59.6% female): 288 from intervention and 237 from control practices. There were no statistically significant differences in SF-12 PCS: mean difference at the 6-month primary endpoint was -0.37 (95% CI -2.32, 1.57). Uptake of core NICE recommendations by 6 months was statistically significantly higher in the intervention arm compared with control: e.g., increased written exercise information, 20.5% (7.9, 28.3). CONCLUSION: Whilst uptake of core NICE recommendations was increased, there was no evidence of benefit of this intervention, as delivered in this pragmatic randomised trial, on the primary outcome of physical functioning at 6 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN06984617.

Effect of a model consultation informed by guidelines on recorded quality of care of osteoarthritis (MOSAICS): a cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of a model osteoarthritis (OA) consultation (MOAC) informed by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommendations compared with usual care on recorded quality of care of clinical OA in general practice. DESIGN: Two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Eight general practices in Cheshire, Shropshire, or Staffordshire UK. PARTICIPANTS: General practitioners and nurses with patients consulting with clinical OA. INTERVENTION: Following six-month baseline period practices were randomised to intervention (n = 4) or usual care (n = 4). Intervention practices delivered MOAC (enhanced initial GP consultation, nurse-led clinic, OA guidebook) to patients aged ≥45 years consulting with clinical OA. An electronic (e-)template for consultations was used in all practices to record OA quality care indicators. OUTCOMES: Quality of OA care over six months recorded in the medical record. RESULTS: 1851 patients consulted in baseline period (1015 intervention; 836 control); 1960 consulted following randomisation (1118 intervention; 842 control). At baseline wide variations in quality of care were noted. Post-randomisation increases were found for written advice on OA (4-28%), exercise (4-22%) and weight loss (1-15%) in intervention practices but not controls (1-3%). Intervention practices were more likely to refer to physiotherapy (10% vs 2%, odds ratio 5.30; 95% CI 2.11, 13.34), and prescribe paracetamol (22% vs 14%, 1.74; 95% CI 1.27, 2.38). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention did not improve all aspects of care but increased core NICE recommendations of written advice on OA, exercise and weight management. There remains a need to reduce variation and uniformly enhance improvement in recorded OA care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN06984617.

The OA Trial Bank: meta-analysis of individual patient data from knee and hip osteoarthritis trials show that patients with severe pain exhibit greater benefit from intra-articular glucocorticoids.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of intra-articular (IA) glucocorticoids for knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) in specific subgroups of patients with severe pain and inflammatory signs using individual patient data (IPD) from existing trials. DESIGN: Randomized trials evaluating one or more IA glucocorticoid preparation in patients with knee or hip OA, published from 1995 up to June 2012 were selected from the literature. IPD obtained from original trials included patient and disease characteristics and outcomes measured. The primary outcome was pain severity at short-term follow-up (up to 4 weeks). The subgroup factors assessed included severe pain (≥70 points, 0-100 scale) and signs of inflammation (dichotomized in present or not) at baseline. Multilevel regression analyses were applied to estimate the magnitude of the effects in the subgroups with the individuals nested within each study. RESULTS: Seven out of 43 published randomized clinical trials (n = 620) were included. Patients with severe baseline pain had a significantly larger reduction in short-term pain, but not in mid- and long-term pain, compared to those with less severe pain at baseline (Mean Difference 13.91; 95% Confidence Interval 1.50-26.31) when receiving IA glucocorticoid injection compared to placebo. No statistical significant interaction effects were found between inflammatory signs and IA glucocorticoid injections compared to placebo and to tidal irrigation at all follow-up points. CONCLUSIONS: This IPD meta-analysis demonstrates that patients with severe knee pain at baseline derive more benefit from IA glucocorticoid injection at short-term follow-up than those with less severe pain at baseline.

Self-reported quality care for knee osteoarthritis: comparisons across Denmark, Norway, Portugal and the UK.

OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare patient perceived quality of osteoarthritis (OA) management in primary healthcare in Denmark, Norway, Portugal and the UK. METHODS: Participants consulting with clinical signs and symptoms of knee OA were identified in 30 general practices and invited to complete a cross-sectional survey including quality indicators (QI) for OA care. A QI was considered as eligible if the participant had checked 'Yes' or 'No', and as achieved if the participant had checked 'Yes' to the indicator. The median percentage (with IQR and range) of eligible QIs achieved by country was determined and compared in negative binominal regression analysis. Achievement of individual QIs by country was determined and compared using logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 354 participants self-reported QI achievement. The median percentage of eligible QIs achieved (checked 'Yes') was 48% (IQR 28%, 64%; range 0-100%) for the total sample with relatively similar medians across three of four countries. Achievement rates on individual QIs showed a large variation ranging from 11% (referral to services for losing weight) to 67% (information about the importance of exercise) with significant differences in achievement rates between the countries. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated a potential for improvement in OA care in all four countries, but for somewhat different aspects of OA care. By exploring these differences and comparing healthcare services, ideas may be generated on how the quality might be improved across nations. Larger studies are needed to confirm and further explore the findings.

Quality indicators for the primary care of osteoarthritis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify valid and feasible quality indicators for the primary care of osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: Systematic review and narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Electronic reference databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, HMIC, PsychINFO), quality indicator repositories, subject experts. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible articles referred to adults with OA, focused on development or implementation of quality indicators, and relevant to UK primary care. An English language restriction was used. The date range for the search was January 2000 to August 2013. The majority of OA management guidance has been published within this time frame. DATA EXTRACTION: Relevant studies were quality assessed using previous quality indicator methodology. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Articles were assessed through the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology filter; indicators were mapped to management guidance for OA in adults. A narrative synthesis was used to combine the indicators within themes. RESULTS: 10,853 articles were identified from the search; 32 were included in the review. Fifteen indicators were considered valid and feasible for implementation in primary care; these related to assessment non-pharmacological and pharmacological management. Another 10 indicators were considered less feasible, in various aspects of assessment and management. A small number of recommendations had no published corresponding quality indicator, such as use of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. No negative ('do not do') indicators were identified. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: There are well-developed, feasible indicators of quality of care for OA which could be implemented in primary care. Their use would assist the audit and quality improvement for this common and frequently disabling condition.

Subsets of symptomatic hand osteoarthritis in community-dwelling older adults in the United Kingdom: prevalence, inter-relationships, risk factor profiles and clinical characteristics at baseline and 3-years.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the population prevalence, inter-relationships, risk factor profiles and clinical characteristics of subsets of symptomatic hand osteoarthritis (OA) with a view to understanding their relative frequency and distinctiveness. METHOD: 1076 community-dwelling adults with hand symptoms (60% women, mean age 64.7 years) were recruited and classified into pre-defined subsets using physical examination and standardised hand radiographs, scored with the Kellgren & Lawrence (K&L) and Verbruggen-Veys grading systems. Detailed information on selected risk factors was obtained from direct measurement (Body Mass Index (BMI)), self-complete questionnaires (excessive use of hands, previous hand injury) and medical record review (hypertension, dyslipidaemia, type 2 diabetes). Hand pain and disability were self-reported at baseline and 3-year follow-up using Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN). RESULTS: Crude population prevalence estimates for symptomatic hand OA subsets in the adult population aged 50 years and over were: thumb base OA (22.4%), nodal interphalangeal joint (IPJ) OA (15.5%), generalised hand OA (10.4%), non-nodal IPJ OA (4.9%), erosive OA (1.0%). Apart from thumb base OA, there was considerable overlap between the subsets. Erosive OA appeared the most distinctive with the highest female: male ratio, and the most disability at baseline and 3-years. A higher frequency of obesity, hypertension, dyslipidaemia, and metabolic syndrome was observed in this subset. CONCLUSION: Overlap in the occurrence of hand OA subsets poses conceptual and practical challenges to the pursuit of distinct phenotypes. Erosive OA may nevertheless provide particular insight into the role of metabolic and cardiovascular risk factors in the pathogenesis of OA.

Radiographic hand osteoarthritis: patterns and associations with hand pain and function in a community-dwelling sample.

OBJECTIVE: Patterns of radiographic osteoarthritis (ROA) of the hand are often examined by row, with the four joints of the thumb studied inconsistently. The objectives of this study were to determine relationships of ROA at different hand joints, use the findings to define radiographic sub-groups and investigate their associations with pain and function. METHODS: Sixteen joints in each hand were scored for the presence of ROA in a community-dwelling cohort of adults, 50-years-and-over, with self-reported hand pain or problems. Principal components analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was used to study patterns of ROA in the hand joints and identify distinct sub-groups. Differences in pain and function between these sub-groups were assessed using Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Index (AUSCAN), Grip Ability Test (GAT) and grip and pinch strength. RESULTS: PCA was undertaken on data from 592 participants and identified four components: distal interphalangeal joints (DIPs), proximal interphalangeal joints (PIPs), metacarpophalangeal joints (MCPs), thumb joints. However, the left thumb interphalangeal (IP) joint cross-loaded with the PIP and thumb groups. On this basis, participants were categorised into four radiographic sub-groups: no osteoarthritis (OA), finger only OA, thumb only OA and combined thumb and finger OA. Statistically significant differences were found between the sub-groups for AUSCAN function, and in women alone for grip and pinch strength. Participants with combined thumb and finger OA had the worst scores. CONCLUSION: Individual thumb joints can be clustered together as a joint group in ROA. Four radiographic sub-groups of hand OA can be distinguished. Pain and functional difficulties were highest in participants with both thumb and finger OA.

Hand problems in community-dwelling older adults: onset and effect on global physical function over a 3-year period.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of the onset of hand problems on global physical functioning in community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: Three-year follow-up postal survey of a population sample of older adults (50 yrs and over) previously recruited to the North Staffordshire Osteoarthritis Project. Questionnaires at baseline and 3-yr collected data on joint pain in the past 12 months in the hands and lower limbs, and physical functioning [SF-36 subscale (PF-10)]. Onset of hand problems at 3 yrs was determined in two subgroups: (i) those free from hand problems and lower limb pain at baseline (n = 762) and (ii) those free from hand problems but with lower limb pain at baseline (n = 754). Changes in PF-10 scores from baseline to 3 yrs were examined in these two subgroups. RESULTS: Onset of hand problems was similar in the two subgroups (20.6 and 24.3% in those without and with baseline lower limb pain, respectively). Females had a higher onset than males but age had little influence. Significantly greater mean change in PF-10 scores was seen in those who reported hand problem onset compared with persons who remained free of hand problems; 8.47 vs 4.62 and 4.78 vs 1.08 in those without and with baseline lower limb pain, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The development of hand problems has a detrimental effect on global physical functioning even in the absence of concurrent lower limb problems. The assessment and effective treatment of hand problems could prove to be important components of maintaining function in the older adult with joint pain and OA.

EULAR evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis of hand osteoarthritis: report of a task force of ESCISIT.

OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis of hand osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: The multidisciplinary guideline development group, representing 15 European countries, generated 10 key propositions regarding diagnosis using a Delphi consensus approach. For each recommendation, research evidence was searched for systematically. Whenever possible, the sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratio (LR) were calculated; relative risk and odds ratios were estimated for risk factors for hand OA. Quality of evidence was categorised using the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) hierarchy, and strength of recommendation was assessed by the EULAR visual analogue scale. RESULTS: Diagnostic topics included clinical manifestations, radiographic features, subgroups, differential diagnosis, laboratory tests, risk factors and comorbidities. The sensitivity, specificity and LR varied between tests depending upon the cut-off level, gold standard and controls. Overall, no single test could be used to define hand OA on its own (LR <10) but a composite of the tests greatly increased the chance of the diagnosis. The probability of a subject having hand OA was 20% when Heberden nodes alone were present, but this increased to 88% when in addition the subject was over 40 years old, had a family history of nodes and had joint space narrowing in any finger joint. CONCLUSION: Ten key recommendations for diagnosis of hand OA were developed using research evidence and expert consensus. Diagnosis of hand OA should be based on assessment of a composite of features.