R Theiler1, H A Bischoff-Ferrari, M Good, N Bellamy. 1. Rheumatology Clinic and Institute for Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Stadtspital Triemli, Zurich, Switzerland. robert.theiler@triemli.stzh.ch
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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