2023 EULAR classification criteria for hand osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to develop classification criteria for overall hand osteoarthritis (OA), interphalangeal OA and thumb base OA based on self-reported data and radiographic features. METHODS: The classification criteria sets were developed in three phases. In phase 1, we identified criteria that discriminated hand OA from controls. In phase 2, we used a consensus-based decision analysis approach to derive a clinician-based evaluation of the relative importance of the criteria. In phase 3, we refined the scoring system, determined the cut-offs for disease classification and compared the sensitivity and specificity of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) criteria with the 1990 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria. RESULTS: In persons with hand symptoms and no other disease (including psoriasis) or acute injury that can explain the hand symptoms (mandatory criteria), hand OA can be classified based on age, duration of morning stiffness, number of joints with osteophytes and joint space narrowing, and concordance between symptoms and radiographic findings. Using a sum of scores based on each diagnostic element, overall hand OA can be classified if a person achieves 9 or more points on a 0-15 scale. The cut-off for interphalangeal OA and thumb base OA is 8 points. While the EULAR criteria demonstrated better sensitivity than the ACR criteria in the phase 1 data set, the performance of the two criteria sets was similar in two external cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: International experts developed the EULAR criteria to classify overall hand OA, interphalangeal OA and thumb base OA in clinical studies using a rigorous methodology.

Development and initial validation of a questionnaire to assess facilitators and barriers to physical activity for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis and/or psoriatic arthritis.

To develop and validate a self-administered questionnaire to identify in people with Inflammatory arthritis (IA) Facilitators And Barriers to Physical activity (PA): the IFAB questionnaire. The development of the questionnaire included a systematic review of barriers and facilitators to PA to identify key themes, face validity assessment by 11 experts, and cognitive debriefing with 14 patients. The psychometric properties of the questionnaire were assessed by convergent validity (Spearman correlation) against the modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ), the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire subscale for PA and the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, internal consistency (Cronbach α) in 63 IA patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Reliability and feasibility were assessed in 32 IA patients. The questionnaire comprises 10 items: 4 assessing either barriers or facilitators, 3 assessing barriers, and 3 assessing facilitators. The items are related to psychological status (N = 6), social support (N = 2), disease (N = 1), environmental factors (N = 1). The validation study included 63 patients: 26 RA, 24 axSpA, 13 PsA; with mean age 52.8 (standard deviation 16.5) years, mean disease duration 12.5 (12.3) years, and 53% of women. The questionnaire was correlated (rho = 0.24) with mHAQ. Internal consistency (Cronbach α 0.69) and reliability (interclass coefficient 0.79 [95% confidence interval 0.59; 0.88]) were satisfactory, as was feasibility (missing data 12%, mean completion time < 5 min). The questionnaire allows the assessment of barriers and facilitators to PA in patients with IA. This questionnaire may guide targeted interventions to increase levels of PA in these patients.

Exercise and inflammation.

Based on current knowledge deriving from studies in animals and humans (the general population and patients with non-communicable diseases), there is biological plausibility that exercise may have anti-inflammatory effects. This may be particularly important for patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). The present review discusses the current state-of-the-art on exercise and inflammation, explores how exercise can moderate inflammation-dependent RMD outcomes and the most prevalent systemic manifestations and addresses the relationship between the dosage (particularly the intensity) of exercise and inflammation. We conclude that present data support potential beneficial effects of exercise on inflammation, however, the evidence specifically in RMDs is limited and inconclusive. More targeted research is required to elucidate the effects of exercise on inflammation in the context of RMDs.

Exercise for Hand Osteoarthritis: A Cochrane Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefits and harms of exercise compared with other interventions, including placebo or no intervention, in people with hand osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Systematic review using Cochrane Collaboration methodology. Six electronic databases were searched up until September 2015. INCLUSION CRITERIA: randomized or controlled clinical trials comparing therapeutic exercise versus no exercise, or comparing different exercise programs. MAIN OUTCOMES: hand pain, hand function, finger joint stiffness, quality of life, adverse events, and withdrawals because of adverse effects. Risk of bias and quality of the evidence were assessed. RESULTS: Seven trials were included in the review, and up to 5 trials (n = 381) were included in the pooled analyses with data from postintervention. Compared to no exercise, low-quality evidence indicated that exercise may improve hand pain [5 trials, standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.27, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.07], hand function (4 trials, SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.02), and finger joint stiffness (4 trials, SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.15) in people with hand OA. Quality of life was evaluated by 1 study (113 participants) showing very low-quality evidence for no difference. Three studies reported on adverse events, which were very few and not severe. CONCLUSION: Pooled results from 5 studies with low risk of bias showed low-quality evidence for small to moderate beneficial effects of exercise on hand pain, function, and finger joint stiffness postintervention. Estimated effect sizes were small, and whether they represent a clinically important change may be debated.

Exercise for hand osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Hand osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent joint disease that may lead to pain, stiffness and problems in performing hand-related activities of daily living. Currently, no cure for OA is known, and non-pharmacological modalities are recommended as first-line care. A positive effect of exercise in hip and knee OA has been documented, but the effect of exercise on hand OA remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of exercise compared with other interventions, including placebo or no intervention, in people with hand OA. Main outcomes are hand pain and hand function. SEARCH METHODS: We searched six electronic databases up until September 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised and controlled clinical trials comparing therapeutic exercise versus no exercise or comparing different exercise programmes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and assessed the quality of the body of evidence using the GRADE approach. Outcomes consisted of both continuous (hand pain, physical function, finger joint stiffness and quality of life) and dichotomous outcomes (proportions of adverse events and withdrawals). MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies in the review. Most studies were free from selection and reporting bias, but one study was available only as a congress abstract. It was not possible to blind participants to treatment allocation, and although most studies reported blinded outcome assessors, some outcomes (pain, function, stiffness and quality of life) were self-reported. The results may be vulnerable to performance and detection bias owing to unblinded participants and self-reported outcomes. Two studies with high drop-out rates may be vulnerable to attrition bias. We downgraded the overall quality of the body of evidence to low owing to potential detection bias (lack of blinding of participants on self-reported outcomes) and imprecision (studies were few, the number of participants was limited and confidence intervals were wide for the outcomes pain, function and joint stiffness). For quality of life, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events, we further downgraded the overall quality of the body of evidence to very low because studies were very few and confidence intervals were very wide.Low-quality evidence from five trials (381 participants) indicated that exercise reduced hand pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to -0.07) post intervention. The absolute reduction in pain for the exercise group, compared with the control group, was 5% (1% to 9%) on a 0 to 10 point scale. Pain was estimated to be 3.9 points on this scale (0 = no pain) in the control group, and exercise reduced pain by 0.5 points (95% CI 0.1 to 0.9; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 9).Four studies (369 participants) indicated that exercise improved hand function (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.02) post intervention. The absolute improvement in function noted in the exercise group, compared with the control group, was 6% (0.4% worsening to 13% improvement). Function was estimated at 14.5 points on a 0 to 36 point scale (0 = no physical disability) in the control group, and exercise improved function by 2.2 points (95% CI -0.2 to 4.6; NNTB 9).One study (113 participants) evaluated quality of life, and the effect of exercise on quality of life is currently uncertain (mean difference (MD) 0.30, 95% CI -3.72 to 4.32). The absolute improvement in quality of life for the exercise group, compared with the control group, was 0.3% (4% worsening to 4% improvement). Quality of life was 50.4 points on a 0 to 100 point scale (100 = maximum quality of life) in the control group, and the mean score in the exercise group was 0.3 points higher (3.5 points lower to 4.1 points higher).Four studies (369 participants) indicated that exercise reduced finger joint stiffness (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.15) post intervention. The absolute reduction in finger joint stiffness for the exercise group, compared with the control group, was 7% (3% to 10%). Finger joint stiffness was estimated at 4.5 points on a 0 to 10 point scale (0 = no stiffness) in the control group, and exercise improved stiffness by 0.7 points (95% CI 0.3 to 1.0; NNTB 7).Three studies reported intervention-related adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. The few reported adverse events consisted of increased finger joint inflammation and hand pain. Low-quality evidence from the three studies showed an increased likelihood of adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 4.55, 95% CI 0.53 to 39.31) and of withdrawals due to adverse events in the exercise group compared with the control group (RR 2.88, 95% CI 0.30 to 27.18), but the effect is uncertain and further research may change the estimates.Included studies did not measure radiographic joint structure changes. Two studies provided six-month follow-up data (220 participants), and one (102 participants) provided 12-month follow-up data. The positive effect of exercise on pain, function and joint stiffness was not sustained at medium- and long-term follow-up.The exercise intervention varied largely in terms of dosage, content and number of supervised sessions. Participants were instructed to exercise two to three times a week in four studies, daily in two studies and three to four times daily in another study. Exercise interventions in all seven studies aimed to improve muscle strength and joint stability or function, but the numbers and types of exercises varied largely across studies. Four studies reported adherence to the exercise programme; in three studies, this was self-reported. Self-reported adherence to the recommended frequency of exercise sessions ranged between 78% and 94%. In the fourth study, 67% fulfilled at least 16 of the 18 scheduled exercise sessions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When we pooled results from five studies, we found low-quality evidence showing small beneficial effects of exercise on hand pain, function and finger joint stiffness. Estimated effect sizes were small, and whether they represent a clinically important change may be debated. One study reported quality of life, and the effect is uncertain. Three studies reported on adverse events, which were very few and were not severe.

Development of patient-centred standards of care for osteoarthritis in Europe: the eumusc.net-project.

OBJECTIVE: The eumusc.net project is an initiative founded by the European Community and the European League Against Rheumatism. One aim of the project was to facilitate equal standards for musculoskeletal health across Europe. The aim of this work-package was to develop patient-centred and consensus based standards of care (SOC) for osteoarthritis (OA), which should be available in a professional and a patient version. METHODS: A systematic review concerning guidelines dealing with OA was conducted. Furthermore, experts in musculoskeletal diseases were contacted to ensure that 'grey' literature was not excluded. Documents that fulfilled predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria were included and all interventions for OA were extracted and categorised. Based on this list of interventions, a three round Delphi exercise with an international and multidisciplinary expert panel, including patient research partners, was performed to achieve expert consensus. RESULTS: Six documents were included and used for further analysis. Out of them, 46 interventions have been extracted and 10 consensus based SOC were formulated. In addition, a patient version, written in a lay-understandable wording and in the format of checklist questions was developed. An example is SOC 5: "People with OA should achieve optimal pain control using pharmacological and non-pharmacological means." The matching patient-centred checklist question reads: "Do I know how to control pain associated with OA?" CONCLUSIONS: The SOC for OA will be available in the 23 languages of the European Union to enhance unified information to patients and professionals and to further harmonise the treatment/care of OA within Europe.

The burden of disease in rheumatoid arthritis.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease which, if left untreated, leads to functional disability, pain, reduced health-related quality of life and premature mortality. Between 0.5% and 1% of the population are affected worldwide, and between 25 and 50 new cases evolve in a population of 100,000. Practically all patients with RA require initiation with disease-modifying antirheumatic treatment to retard or stop progression, control disease manifestations and reduce the disease burden. If disease course is monitored with adjustment of medication, lifestyle factors, and exercise, as well as physical activity levels, co-morbidities may be prevented in the course of RA. During the last decade, major progress has been made in treating RA through early identification and treatment of the disease. Many patients still experience premature work disability and co-morbidities. For societies, the economic burden of RA is high in terms of direct and indirect costs, including modern drug treatment.

Facilitators to implement standards of care for rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis: the EUMUSC.NET project.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA) are important musculoskeletal diseases that the EUMUSC.NET project developed Standards of Care (SOC) for. OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to explore factors to enable successful implementation of the SOC for RA and OA. METHODS: A combined set of methods was used; a literature search, a European survey among patients, clinicians and policymakers; and focus groups. RESULTS: Potential facilitators were identified during a literature search. The online survey captured 282 responses from clinicians, patients and policymakers from 35 European countries, and focus groups from 5 countries contributed with knowledge about possible additional facilitators and strategies. Both the survey and the focus groups endorsed all 11 facilitators. The most important facilitators for implementing the SOC were motivation, agreement, knowledge and personal attitude. The focus groups underlined the lack of access to recommended care in some countries, that multidisciplinary teams should be strengthened and that some healthcare reimbursement systems need change to implement recommended clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Eleven facilitators key for the implementation of the SOC for RA and OA were endorsed by patients and clinicians from 35 European countries. This knowledge may contribute to improved care for patients with RA and OA in Europe.

Disease impact of hand OA compared with hip, knee and generalized disease in specialist rheumatology health care.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare disease impact in patients with hand OA with those with hip, knee and generalized disease. METHODS: Patients with OA referred to a specialized rheumatology clinic (408 patients, 86% women) were included in a cross-sectional study. They were examined by a rheumatologist and classified into primary hand, hip, knee and/or generalized (more than two joint localizations) OA. Patient-reported disease impact was collected on numeric rating scales (pain, fatigue), Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (emotional distress), Western Ontario and McMaster and Australian/Canadian Hand OA indexes (disease-specific functioning), Short Form 36 (generic health-related quality of life) and a comorbidity checklist. RESULTS: Considerable disease impact was detected across all localizations: patients scored >5 on pain (range 0-10), had on average two comorbidities and scored >1.5 on emotional distress (Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25, range 1-4). Patients with hand OA scored poor on disease-specific functioning of the lower extremities, and patients with lower extremity OA also scored poor on disease-specific hand functioning. Patients with hand OA scored better on pain (P = 0.001, one-way analyses of variance) and the Short Form 36 Health Survey physical component (P < 0.001), whereas no major differences were observed for the mental component (P = 0.07). CONCLUSION: OA patients referred to specialist care reported considerable levels of disease impact across localizations. Regardless of functional impairments related to the primary OA localization, patients generally reported high levels of impaired disease-specific functioning at other sites. In the management of OA clinicians should also consider functioning in joint sites other than the primary OA localization. Trial registration. Current controlled trials, www.controlled-trials.com, ISRCTN25778426.

Development of a brief multidisciplinary education programme for patients with osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent progressive musculoskeletal disorder, leading to pain and disability. Patient information and education are considered core elements in treatment guidelines for OA; however, there is to our knowledge no evidence-based recommendation on the best approach, content or length on educational programmes in OA. OBJECTIVE: to develop a brief, patient oriented disease specific multidisciplinary education programme (MEP) to enhance self-management in patients with OA. METHOD: Twelve persons (80% female mean age 59 years) diagnosed with hand, hip or knee OA participated in focus group interviews. In the first focus group, six participants were interviewed about their educational needs, attitudes and expectations for the MEP. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and thereafter condensed.Based on results from focus group interviews, current research evidence, clinical knowledge and patients' experience, a multidisciplinary OA team (dietist, nurse, occupational therapist, pharmacist, physical therapist and rheumatologist) and a patient representative developed a pilot-MEP after having attended a work-shop in health pedagogics. Finally, the pilot-MEP was evaluated by a second focus group consisting of four members from the first focus group and six other experienced patients, before final adjustments were made. RESULTS: The focus group interviews revealed four important themes: what is OA, treatment options, barriers and coping strategies in performing daily activities, and how to live with osteoarthritis. Identified gaps between patient expectations and experience with the pilot-programme were discussed and adapted into a final MEP. The final MEP was developed as a 3.5 hour educational programme provided in groups of 6-9 patients. All members from the multidisciplinary team are involved in the education programme, including a facilitator who during the provision of the programme ensures that the individual questions are addressed. As part of an ongoing process, a patient representative regularly attends the MEP and gives feedback concerning content and perceived value. CONCLUSION: A MEP has been developed to enhance self-management in patients with OA attending a multidisciplinary OA outpatient clinic. The effectiveness of the MEP followed by individual consultations with members of the multidisciplinary team is currently evaluated in a randomised controlled trial with respect to patient satisfaction and functioning.

Systematic review of design and effects of splints and exercise programs in hand osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and evaluate the design and effects of splints and exercise programs in hand osteoarthritis. METHODS: Controlled trials identified through systematic literature reviews were included. Design of splints and exercise programs were evaluated according to existing recommendations and classification systems. The risk of bias was assessed by 2 independent reviewers and effects were summarized descriptively or by meta-analyses. RESULTS: Twelve trials were included in the review: 7 assessed the effect of splints, 3 the effect of exercises, and 2 a combination of splints and exercises. The results revealed a great variety in the design of splint and exercise programs. A meta-analysis of the 2 randomized trials with low risk of bias demonstrated that splints significantly reduced hand pain at short-term (<3 months) and long-term (≥3 months) followup, with a standardized mean difference of 0.37 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.03, 0.71) and 0.80 (95% CI 0.45, 1.15), respectively. Further, results from single trials indicated that hand exercises may reduce pain and increase range of motion and strength, while a combination of splints and daily exercises may reduce pain and stiffness and improve function. CONCLUSION: There is consistent evidence that splints reduce hand pain, but limited evidence for the effects of hand exercises and a combination of hand exercises and splints in hand osteoarthritis.

Concurrent evaluation of data quality, reliability and validity of the Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index and the Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Concurrent evaluation of data quality, internal consistency, test-retest reliability and validity of two patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for measuring functional impairment in hand OA (HOA); the Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN; 15 items) and the Functional Index of HOA (FIHOA; 10 items). METHODS: Patients from an HOA cohort [n=128, mean age 68.6 (s.d. 5.8) years, 91% women] completed PROMs and performance measures during routine follow-up. One week later, a subsample (n=40) reporting no change on an HOA-specific transition question contributed with test-retest data. RESULTS: Both instruments had satisfactory levels of data quality, internal consistency, test-retest reliability and construct validity. The AUSCAN performed slightly better than the FIHOA relating to levels of missing data (0 vs 5%), floor effects, principal component analysis loadings (0.62-0.83 vs 0.52-0.83), item-total correlation (0.77-0.91 vs 0.45-0.76) and Cronbach's α (0.94-0.96 vs 0.90), respectively. AUSCAN items had slightly lower test-retest κ-values (0.29-0.77 vs FIHOA 0.41-0.77) and AUSCAN scales lower intra-class correlations (0.80-0.92 vs FIHOA 0.94). Correlations between the two instruments ranged from 0.58 to 0.88 for the AUSCAN scales of stiffness and physical function, respectively. AUSCAN physical function scale was generally slightly strongly correlated with the other PROMS and performance measures. CONCLUSION: The AUSCAN and the FIHOA are reliable and valid instruments suitable for measuring physical functioning in HOA. The FIHOA had higher test-retest reliability and is shorter, but the AUSCAN performed slightly better concerning data quality and construct validity.

There is inadequate evidence to determine the effectiveness of nonpharmacological and nonsurgical interventions for hand osteoarthritis: an overview of high-quality systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Patients with hand osteoarthritis are commonly treated by health care professionals (allied to medicine). Practice should be informed by updated evidence from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials. PURPOSE: The purpose of this overview is to summarize the evidence from systematic reviews of the effectiveness of nonpharmacological and nonsurgical interventions for patients with hand osteoarthritis. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Systematic reviews published between January 2000 and October 2008 were identified by a comprehensive literature search. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently selected reviews for inclusion, assessed their methodological quality, and extracted and synthesized data according to predefined criteria. Four systematic reviews finally were included. Based on single randomized controlled trials, there is some evidence of the effect of pain relief from topical capsaicin compared with placebo and for favorable functional outcomes for exercise and education compared with osteoarthritis information alone. LIMITATIONS: In overviews, results are dependent on available systematic reviews. They are important tools to guide choice of interventions and locate areas where more research is needed, but they might not be useful for deciding specifically how interventions should be carried out. CONCLUSIONS: There currently is insufficient high-quality evidence regarding nonpharmacological and nonsurgical interventions for hand osteoarthritis. Considering the limited research evidence and the prevalence and impact of the disease, there is an urgent need for more trials of nonpharmacological and nonsurgical interventions for hand osteoarthritis.

The evidence for non-pharmacological therapy of hand and hip OA.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of pain and disability worldwide. Evidence-based guidelines and recommendations for the treatment of OA consider non-pharmacological modalities as the cornerstone of modern OA management. Nonetheless, research evidence from clinical trials on non-pharmacological interventions for the treatment of hand and hip OA is scarce and considerably less than that for knee OA. In addition, research on non-pharmacological interventions for OA appears highly on the list of patients' research priorities. Thus, there is a clear mismatch between the available research evidence for non-pharmacological interventions for hip and hand OA and both the treatment guidelines and the interests of patients.

Physical therapy interventions for patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: an overview of systematic reviews.

Patients with osteoarthritis of the knee are commonly treated by physical therapists. Practice should be informed by updated evidence from systematic reviews. The purpose of this article is to summarize the evidence from systematic reviews on the effectiveness of physical therapy for patients with knee osteoarthritis. Systematic reviews published between 2000 and 2007 were identified by a comprehensive literature search. We graded the quality of evidence across reviews for each comparison and outcome. Twenty-three systematic reviews on physical therapy interventions for patients with knee osteoarthritis were included. There is high-quality evidence that exercise and weight reduction reduce pain and improve physical function in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. There is moderate-quality evidence that acupuncture, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and low-level laser therapy reduce pain and that psychoeducational interventions improve psychological outcomes. For other interventions and outcomes, the quality of evidence is low or there is no evidence from systematic reviews.

Effectiveness of nonpharmacological and nonsurgical interventions for hip osteoarthritis: an umbrella review of high-quality systematic reviews.

An increasing number of systematic reviews are available regarding nonpharmacological and nonsurgical interventions for hip osteoarthritis (OA). The objectives of this article are to identify high-quality systematic reviews on the effect of nonpharmacological and nonsurgical interventions for hip OA and to summarize available high-quality evidence for these treatment approaches. The authors identified and screened 204 reviews. Two independent reviewers using a previously pilot-tested quality assessment form assessed the full text of 58 reviews. Six reviews were of sufficient high quality and could be included for further analyses. There was moderate-quality evidence that acupuncture and diacerein have no effect on pain and function. There was low-quality evidence that strengthening exercises and avocado/soybean unsaponifiables reduce pain and that diacerein decreases radiographic OA progression. There was insufficient high-quality evidence regarding nonpharmacological and nonsurgical interventions for hip OA, and further primary studies and reviews are needed.

Effectiveness of nonpharmacological and nonsurgical interventions for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an overview of systematic reviews.

Conclusions based on systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials are considered to provide the highest level of evidence about the effectiveness of an intervention. This overview summarizes the available evidence from systematic reviews on the effects of nonpharmacological and nonsurgical interventions for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Systematic reviews of studies of patients with RA (aged >18 years) published between 2000 and 2007 were identified by comprehensive literature searches. Methodological quality was independently assessed by 2 authors, and the quality of evidence was summarized by explicit methods. Pain, function, and patient global assessment were considered primary outcomes of interest. Twenty-eight systematic reviews were included in this overview. High-quality evidence was found for beneficial effects of joint protection and patient education, moderate-quality evidence was found for beneficial effects of herbal therapy (gamma-linolenic acid) and low-level laser therapy, and low-quality evidence was found for the effectiveness of the other interventions. The quality of evidence for the effectiveness of most nonpharmacological and nonsurgical interventions in RA is moderate to low.