Literature DB >> 15501407

Responsiveness of the electronic touch screen WOMAC 3.1 OA Index in a short term clinical trial with rofecoxib.

R Theiler1, H A Bischoff-Ferrari, M Good, N Bellamy.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index is a self-administered validated questionnaire for patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee. The electronic touch screen version of the WOMAC (e-WOMAC) has been previously shown to be highly correlated with the original paper format. However, whether the e-WOMAC would be suitable for monitoring the effects of drug treatment is unknown. AIM: To validate the longitudinal use of the e-WOMAC questionnaire and its ability to detect changes in WOMAC-scores induced by drug treatment in outpatient care.
METHODS: Fifty-three outpatients, men and women (mean age: 64 years; SD+/-9.5), with symptomatic osteoarthritis of hip or knee were included in an open label study with rofecoxib. At three visits over 3 weeks, responsiveness of the WOMAC 3.1 regarding the three subscales, pain, stiffness and function, were compared for the original paper format and the computer touch screen format (QUALITOUCH) using a Likert scale. WOMAC scores were transformed to the 0-100 scale. ANOVA for repeated measures was used for analysis and effect sizes by subscale were compared for both formats.
RESULTS: Responsiveness for all three subscales was similar between formats. In both formats, pain and stiffness were significantly reduced with rofecoxib as early as 7 days, while functional ability was significantly increased (P<0.01 for all aggregate subscale scores) with continuing improvement until the end of study. The effect sizes by subscale between Day 1 and 21 were not statistically different between the paper and the electronic version of the questionnaire and showed similar clinically meaningful improvements in WOMAC scores over 3 weeks.
CONCLUSION: In this longitudinal intervention study, the e-WOMAC OA Index 3.1 showed similar responsiveness in detecting clinically meaningful changes than the original paper format.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15501407     DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2004.08.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage        ISSN: 1063-4584            Impact factor:   6.576


  11 in total

1.  Validation of web-based administration of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ-12).

Authors:  Brent A Parnell; Gena C Dunivan; Annamarie Connolly; Mary L Jannelli; Ellen C Wells; Elizabeth J Geller
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2010-10-23       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 2.  [Postoperative physiotherapy in acute care--when, what and how much?].

Authors:  R Theiler; C Schmid; R Risler; L Moser
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  Electronic data capture using the Womac NRS 3.1 Index (m-Womac): a pilot study of repeated independent remote data capture in OA.

Authors:  Nicholas Bellamy; B Patel; T Davis; S Dennison
Journal:  Inflammopharmacology       Date:  2010-04-27       Impact factor: 4.473

Review 4.  Measures of knee function: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical Function Short Form (KOOS-PS), Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADL), Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Activity Rating Scale (ARS), and Tegner Activity Score (TAS).

Authors:  Natalie J Collins; Devyani Misra; David T Felson; Kay M Crossley; Ewa M Roos
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 4.794

5.  Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D when measuring the benefits of alleviating knee pain.

Authors:  Garry R Barton; Tracey H Sach; Anthony J Avery; Michael Doherty; Claire Jenkinson; Kenneth R Muir
Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc       Date:  2009-07-17

6.  Development of a computer-adaptive version of the forgotten joint score.

Authors:  Johannes M Giesinger; Markus S Kuster; Bernhard Holzner; Karlmeinrad Giesinger
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2012-12-05       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  Do estimates of cost-utility based on the EQ-5D differ from those based on the mapping of utility scores?

Authors:  Garry R Barton; Tracey H Sach; Claire Jenkinson; Anthony J Avery; Michael Doherty; Kenneth R Muir
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2008-07-14       Impact factor: 3.186

8.  Validity of a simple Internet-based outcome-prediction tool in patients with total hip replacement: a pilot study.

Authors:  Cornel Stöckli; Robert Theiler; Eduard Sidelnikov; Maria Balsiger; Stephen M Ferrari; Beatus Buchzig; Kurt Uehlinger; Christoph Riniker; Heike A Bischoff-Ferrari
Journal:  J Telemed Telecare       Date:  2014-02-28       Impact factor: 6.184

9.  Comparative responsiveness of outcome measures for total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  K Giesinger; D F Hamilton; B Jost; B Holzner; J M Giesinger
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2013-11-18       Impact factor: 6.576

10.  Accuracy, Validity, and Reliability of an Electronic Visual Analog Scale for Pain on a Touch Screen Tablet in Healthy Older Adults: A Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Marie-Louise Bird; Michele L Callisaya; John Cannell; Timothy Gibbons; Stuart T Smith; Kiran Dk Ahuja
Journal:  Interact J Med Res       Date:  2016-01-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.