| Literature DB >> 21504991 |
Michael R Backhouse1, Anne-Maree Keenan, Elizabeth M A Hensor, Adam Young, David James, Josh Dixey, Peter Williams, Peter Prouse, Andrew Gough, Philip S Helliwell, Anthony C Redmond.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe conservative and surgical foot care in patients with RA in England and explore factors that predict the type of foot care received.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21504991 PMCID: PMC3157630 DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/ker130
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) ISSN: 1462-0324 Impact factor: 7.580
Results of bivariate logistic and Cox regression analyses
| At baseline | OR (95% CI) | Significance ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 404 | 75 (18.6) | 2.415 (1.809, 3.224) | <0.001 |
| Female | 814 | 289 (35.5) | ||
| Age at onset, per year | 1218 | – | 1.038 (1.028, 1.047) | <0.001 |
| Carstairs deprivation index | ||||
| First quintile | 221 | 70 (31.7) | Reference, overall | 0.223 |
| Second quintile | 267 | 80 (30.0) | 0.923 (0.627, 1.357) | 0.683 |
| Third quintile | 296 | 79 (26.7) | 0.785 (0.535, 1.152) | 0.216 |
| Fourth quintile | 217 | 77 (35.5) | 1.186 (0.798, 1.765) | 0.399 |
| Fifth quintile | 206 | 56 (27.2) | 0.805 (0.530, 1.223) | 0.310 |
| RF | ||||
| Negative | 322 | 89 (27.6) | 1.167 (0.880, 1.549) | 0.284 |
| Positive | 882 | 272 (30.8) | ||
| Nodules | ||||
| Absent | 1123 | 335 (29.8) | 1.034 (0.656, 1.629) | 0.887 |
| Present | 95 | 29 (30.5) | ||
| X-ray erosions foot only | ||||
| Absent | 984 | 284(28.9) | 1.250 (0.910, 1.716) | 0.168 |
| Present | 211 | 71 (33.6) | ||
| X-ray erosions hands or feet | ||||
| Absent | 900 | 252 (28.0) | 1.379 (1.042, 1.825) | 0.024 |
| Present | 295 | 103 (34.9) | ||
| ESR, per mm/h | 1216 | – | 1.006 (1.002, 1.010) | 0.006 |
| DAS, per unit | 1209 | – | 1.180 (1.094, 1.273) | <0.001 |
| HAQ, per unit | 1212 | – | 1.571 (1.334, 1.850) | <0.001 |
aOne patient who had soft-tissue surgery within the first 12 months was excluded from ‘any surgery’ and ‘soft-tissue surgery’ 1-year analyses because this would confound the predictive model.
Multivariate logistic regression models for baseline and 1 year predictors of podiatry
| SE | Wald | OR 95% CI | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | |||||
| Gender: female | 1.018 | 0.155 | 43.39 | <0.001 | 2.768 (2.045, 3.748) |
| Age of onset, per unit | 0.038 | 0.005 | 58.83 | <0.001 | 1.039 (1.029, 1.049) |
| RF positive | 0.258 | 0.153 | 2.85 | 0.091 | 1.294 (0.960, 1.745) |
| Baseline DAS, per unit | 0.141 | 0.041 | 11.78 | 0.001 | 1.151 (1.062, 1.247) |
| Constant | −1.831 | 0.179 | 105.12 | <0.001 | 0.160 (NA) |
| Model performance | |||||
| Overall model evaluation: likelihood ratio test | 122.46, 4 | <0.001 | |||
| Goodness-of-fit test: Hosmer and Lemeshow | 9.36, 8 | 0.313 | |||
| Discrimination | |||||
| Area under the ROC curve (SE) | 0.70 (0.02) | <0.001 | |||
| Variable | |||||
| Gender: female | 0.906 | 0.169 | 28.75 | <0.001 | 2.474 (1.776, 3.445) |
| Age of onset, per unit | 0.039 | 0.006 | 49.00 | <0.001 | 1.040 (1.028, 1.051) |
| 1 year erosions present in feet | 0.472 | 0.159 | 8.78 | 0.003 | 1.603 (1.173, 2.190) |
| 1 year DAS, per unit | 0.105 | 0.056 | 3.55 | 0.059 | 1.110 (0.996, 1.238) |
| 1 year HAQ, per unit | 0.257 | 0.121 | 4.54 | 0.033 | 1.293 (1.021, 1.638) |
| Constant | −0.743 | 0.156 | 124.11 | <0.001 | 0.175 (NA) |
| Test | |||||
| Overall model evaluation: likelihood ratio test | 127.19, 5 | <0.001 | |||
| Goodness-of-fit test: Hosmer and Lemeshow | 5.37, 8 | 0.718 | |||
| Discrimination | |||||
| Area under the ROC curve (SE) | 0.72 (0.02) | <0.001 |
NA: not applicable.
Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models for baseline and 1 year predictors of foot surgery
| SE | Wald | HR (95% CI) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | |||||
| Gender: female | 0.801 | 0.391 | 4.20 | 0.040 | 2.228 (1.036, 4.793) |
| Age of onset, per unit | –0.024 | 0.010 | 5.51 | 0.019 | 0.976 (0.957, 0.996) |
| Baseline DAS, per unit | 0.213 | 0.085 | 6.34 | 0.012 | 1.238 (1.048, 1.461) |
| Model performance | |||||
| Overall model evaluation: likelihood ratio test | 17.46, 3 | 0.001 | |||
| Proportional hazards assumption: likelihood ratio test | 0.58, 3 | 0.902 | |||
| Goodness-of-fit: Groennesby and Borgan score test | 6.48, 5 | 0.263 | |||
| Discrimination | |||||
| Harrell's concordance (C) | 0.67 | ||||
| Variable | |||||
| Gender: female | 1.461 | 0.530 | 7.608 | 0.006 | 4.311 (1.526, 12.175) |
| Age of onset, per unit | −0.028 | 0.011 | 6.113 | 0.013 | 0.973 (0.951, 0.994) |
| 1 year erosions present in feet | 0.664 | 0.323 | 4.220 | 0.040 | 1.943 (1.031, 3.662) |
| Model performance | |||||
| Overall model evaluation: likelihood ratio test | 23.15, 3 | <0.001 | |||
| Proportional hazards assumption: likelihood ratio test | 1.62, 3 | 0.656 | |||
| Goodness-of-fit: Groennesby and Borgan score test | 1.83, 5 | 0.871 | |||
| Discrimination | |||||
| Harrell's concordance (C) | 0.70 | ||||