Relative and absolute test-retest reliabilities of biomechanical risk factors for knee osteoarthritis progression: benchmarks for meaningful change.

OBJECTIVE: Biomechanical factors are important treatment targets in knee osteoarthritis. The knee adduction (KAM) and flexion (KFM) moments, quadriceps strength and power, load frequency, and body mass index (BMI) all have the potential to affect knee articular cartilage integrity by modulating forces across the joint. To identify clinically meaningful change, however, these measurements must be reliable and sensitive to change. This study estimated relative and absolute test-retest reliabilities over long periods of biomechanical risk factors for knee osteoarthritis progression. METHOD: Data from a longitudinal, observational study were analyzed for knee osteoarthritis patients with data at baseline, 6-month and 24-month follow-ups. Gait kinematics and kinetics, quadriceps strength and power, daily load frequency and BMI were collected. Relative and absolute test-retest reliabilities of these measures were estimated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and standard errors of measurement (SEMs), respectively. Minimal detectable change at the 95% confidence level (MDC95) was also calculated. RESULTS: Data from 46 participants [36 women; age 61.0 (6.6) years] were included. Good-to-excellent relative reliabilities (ICC ≥ 0.80) indicated that KAM peak and impulse, quadriceps strength and power, and BMI had a strong ability to discriminate amongst participants. Absolute reliabilities were high for quadriceps strength and BMI, which demonstrated reasonable within-participant variability (SEMs ≤ 11% of the mean). The MDC95 values supported use of clinical interventions effective in reducing BMI and KAM, and increasing quadriceps strength. CONCLUSION: These data are useful in interpreting findings from interventional or longitudinal investigations by determining whether observed changes are beyond measurement error and interpretable as true change.

Reliability and measurement error of the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) recommended performance-based tests of physical function in people with hip and knee osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the reliability and measurement error of performance-based tests of physical function recommended by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) in people with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: Prospective repeated measures between independent raters within a session and within-rater over a week interval. Relative reliability was estimated for 51 people with hip and/or knee OA (mean age 64.5 years, standard deviation (SD) 6.21 years; 47% females; 36 (70%) primary knee OA) on the 30s Chair Stand Test (30sCST), 40m Fast-Paced Walk Test (40mFPWT), 11-Stair Climb Test (11-step SCT), Timed Up and Go (TUG), Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), 10m Fast-Paced Walk Test (10mFPWT) and 20s Stair Climb Test (20sSCT) using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). Absolute reliability was calculated using standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC). RESULTS: Measurement error was acceptable (SEM < 10%) for all tests. Between-rater reliability was: optimal (ICC > 0.9, lower 1-sided 95% CI > 0.7) for the 40mFPWT, 6MWT and 10mFPWT; sufficient (ICC >0.8, lower 1-sided 95% CI > 0.7) for 30sCST, 20sSCT; unacceptable (lower 1-side 95% CI < 0.7) for 11-step SCT and TUG. Within-rater reliability was optimal for 40mFPWT, and 6MWT; sufficient for 30sCST and 10mFPWT and unacceptable for 11-step SCT, TUG and 20sSCT. CONCLUSIONS: The 30sCST, 40mFPWT, 6MWT and 10mFPWT, demonstrated, at minimum, acceptable levels of both between and within-rater reliability and measurement error. All tests demonstrated sufficiently small measurement error indicating they are adequate for measuring change over time in individuals with knee/hip OA.

The incident tibiofemoral osteoarthritis with rapid progression phenotype: development and validation of a prognostic prediction rule.

OBJECTIVES: No clinical prediction rules were found for estimating the likelihood of developing incident radiographic tibiofemoral osteoarthritis (OA) with rapid progression. Such a tool would enhance prognostic capability for clinicians and researchers. DESIGN: We used two longitudinal datasets to independently derive (Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study) and validate (Osteoarthritis Initiative) a prognostic clinical prediction rule for estimating the probability of incident rapidly progressing radiographic knee OA in the following 4-5 years. Eligible subjects had at least one knee with a Kellgren and Lawrence (K&L) graded tibiofemoral joint of 0 or 1. Several potential risk factors were examined including obesity, age, knee alignment, frequent knee symptoms, contralateral knee OA and knee injury history. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify significant predictors and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to assess discrimination. RESULTS: A total of 1690 subjects participated in the derivation and 2422 subjects participated in the validation of the clinical prediction rule. The multivariable model displayed good discrimination with AUC of 0.79 in the derivation dataset and 0.81 in the validation dataset. CONCLUSIONS: Persons with contralateral knee OA, a baseline index knee OA grade of 1, higher body mass index (BMI) and higher baseline Western Ontario and McMaster Universities arthritis index total scores were more likely to develop K&L grade of 3 or 4 within 5 years. Frequent knee symptoms at baseline were not a significant predictor. The prediction rule and nomogram can assist clinicians in estimating the probability of rapidly progressing radiographic knee OA and the nomogram can assist researchers conducting epidemiologic studies and clinical trials.

Pregabalin reduces postoperative opioid consumption and pain for 1 week after hospital discharge, but does not affect function at 6 weeks or 3 months after total hip arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: This study examined whether a perioperative regimen of pregabalin added to celecoxib improved pain scores and functional outcomes postdischarge up to 3 months after total hip arthroplasty (primary outcome) and acute postoperative pain and adverse effects (secondary outcomes). METHODS: One hundred and eighty-four patients were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Two hours before receiving a spinal anaesthetic and undergoing surgery, patients received celecoxib 400 mg p.o. and were randomly assigned to receive either pregabalin 150 mg p.o. or placebo p.o. After surgery, patients received pregabalin 75 mg or placebo twice daily in hospital and for 7 days after discharge. Patients also received celecoxib 200 mg every 12 h for 72 h and morphine i.v. patient-controlled analgesia for 24 h. Pain and function were assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3 months after surgery. RESULTS: There was no difference between groups in physical function or incidence and intensity of chronic pain 3 months after total hip arthroplasty. The pregabalin group used less morphine [mean (sd): 39.85 (28.1) mg] than the placebo group [54.01 (31.2) mg] in the first 24 h after surgery (P<0.01). Pain scores were significantly lower in the pregabalin group vs the placebo group on days 1-7 after hospital discharge, and the pregabalin group required less adjunctive opioid medication (Percocet) 1 week after hospital discharge (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative administration of pregabalin did not improve pain or physical function at 6 weeks or 3 months after total hip arthroplasty. Perioperative administration of pregabalin decreased opioid consumption in hospital and reduced daily pain scores and adjunct opioid consumption for 1 week after discharge.

Perioperative gabapentin reduces 24 h opioid consumption and improves in-hospital rehabilitation but not post-discharge outcomes after total knee arthroplasty with peripheral nerve block.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to determine whether a 4 day perioperative regimen of gabapentin added to celecoxib improves in-hospital rehabilitation and physical function on postoperative day 4 and 6 weeks and 3 months after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: After Research Ethics Board approval and informed consent, 212 patients were enrolled in a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. Two hours before surgery, patients received celecoxib 400 mg p.o. and were randomly assigned to receive either gabapentin 600 mg or placebo p.o. Two hours later, patients received femoral, sciatic nerve blocks, and spinal anaesthesia. After operation, patients received gabapentin 200 mg or placebo three times per day (TID) for 4 days. All patients also received celecoxib 200 mg q12 h for 72 h and i.v. patient-controlled analgesia for 24 h. Pain and function were assessed at baseline, during hospitalization, on postoperative day 4 (POD4), and 6 weeks and 3 months after surgery. RESULTS: The gabapentin group used less morphine in the first 24 h after surgery [G=38.3 (29.5 mg), P=48.2 (29.4 mg)] (P<0.0125) and had increased knee range of motion compared with the placebo group in-hospital (P<0.05). There were no differences between groups in favour of the gabapentin group for pain or physical function on POD 4 [95% confidence interval (CI): pain: -1.4, 0.5; function: -6.3, 2.0], 6 weeks (95% CI: pain: 0.1, 1.9; function: -0.2, 6.5) or 3 months (95% CI: pain: -0.2, 1.7; function: -2.2, 4.3) after TKA. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of celecoxib, spinal anaesthesia, femoral and sciatic nerve blocks, a dose of gabapentin 600 mg before operation followed by 4 days of gabapentin 200 mg TID decreased postoperative analgesic requirements and improved knee range of motion after TKA. Gabapentin provided no improvement in pain or physical function on POD4 and 6 weeks or 3 months after surgery.

OARSI recommended performance-based tests to assess physical function in people diagnosed with hip or knee osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To recommend a consensus-derived set of performance-based tests of physical function for use in people diagnosed with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) or following joint replacement. METHODS: An international, multidisciplinary expert advisory group was established to guide the study. Potential tests for consideration in the recommended set were identified via a survey of selected experts and through a systematic review of the measurement properties for performance-based tests. A multi-phase, consensus-based approach was used to prioritize and select performance-based tests by applying decision analysis methodology (1000Minds software) via online decision surveys. The recommended tests were chosen based on available measurement-property evidence, feasibility of the tests, scoring methods and expert consensus. RESULTS: Consensus incorporated the opinions of 138 experienced clinicians and researchers from 16 countries. The five tests recommended by the advisory group and endorsed by Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) were the 30-s chair-stand test, 40 m fast-paced walk test, a stair-climb test, timed up-and-go test and 6-min walk test. The first three were recommended as the minimal core set of performance-based tests for hip or knee OA. CONCLUSION: The OARSI recommended set of performance-based tests of physical function represents the tests of typical activities relevant to individuals diagnosed with hip or knee OA and following joint replacements. These tests are complementary to patient-reported measures and are recommended as prospective outcome measures in future OA research and to assist decision-making in clinical practice. Further research should be directed to expanding the measurement-property evidence of the recommended tests.

Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change.

STUDY DESIGN: Literature review, expert panel, and a workshop during the "VIII International Forum on Primary Care Research on Low Back Pain" (Amsterdam, June 2006). OBJECTIVE: To develop practical guidance regarding the minimal important change (MIC) on frequently used measures of pain and functional status for low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Empirical studies have tried to determine meaningful changes for back pain, using different methodologies. This has led to confusion about what change is clinically important for commonly used back pain outcome measures. METHODS: This study covered the Visual Analogue Scale (0-100) and the Numerical Rating Scale (0-10) for pain and for function, the Roland Disability Questionnaire (0-24), the Oswestry Disability Index (0-100), and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (0-100). The literature was reviewed for empirical evidence. Additionally, experts and participants of the VIII International Forum on Primary Care Research on Low Back Pain were consulted to develop international consensus on clinical interpretation. RESULTS: There was wide variation in study design and the methods used to estimate MICs, and in values found for MIC, where MIC is the improvement in clinical status of an individual patient. However, after discussion among experts and workshop participants a reasonable consensus was achieved. Proposed MIC values are: 15 for the Visual Analogue Scale, 2 for the Numerical Rating Scale, 5 for the Roland Disability Questionnaire, 10 for the Oswestry Disability Index, and 20 for the QBDQ. When the baseline score is taken into account, a 30% improvement was considered a useful threshold for identifying clinically meaningful improvement on each of these measures. CONCLUSION: For a range of commonly used back pain outcome measures, a 30% change from baseline may be considered clinically meaningful improvement when comparing before and after measures for individual patients. It is hoped that these proposals facilitate the use of these measures in clinical practice and the comparability of future studies. The proposed MIC values are not the final answer but offer a common starting point for future research.

Measurement properties of the WOMAC LK 3.1 pain scale.

OBJECTIVE: The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) is applied extensively to patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Previous work has challenged the validity of its physical function scale however an extensive evaluation of its pain scale has not been reported. Our purpose was to estimate internal consistency, factorial validity, test-retest reliability, and the standard error of measurement (SEM) of the WOMAC LK 3.1 pain scale. METHOD: Four hundred and seventy-four patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee awaiting arthroplasty were administered the WOMAC. Estimates of internal consistency (coefficient alpha), factorial validity (confirmatory factor analysis), and the SEM based on internal consistency (SEM(IC)) were obtained. Test-retest reliability [Type 2,1 intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC)] and a corresponding SEM(TRT) were estimated on a subsample of 36 patients. RESULTS: Our estimates were: internal consistency alpha=0.84; SEM(IC)=1.48; Type 2,1 ICC=0.77; SEM(TRT)=1.69. Confirmatory factor analysis failed to support a single factor structure of the pain scale with uncorrelated error terms. Two comparable models provided excellent fit: (1) a model with correlated error terms between the walking and stairs items, and between night and sit items (chi2=0.18, P=0.98); (2) a two factor model with walking and stairs items loading on one factor, night and sit items loading on a second factor, and the standing item loading on both factors (chi2=0.18, P=0.98). CONCLUSION: Our examination of the factorial structure of the WOMAC pain scale failed to support a single factor and internal consistency analysis yielded a coefficient less than optimal for individual patient use. An alternate strategy to summing the five-item responses when considering individual patient application would be to interpret item responses separately or to sum only those items which display homogeneity.