William J Gregory1,2, Didem Saygin3. 1. Rheumatology Department, Salford Care Organisation, Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK. 2. Faculty of Health, Psychology and Social Care, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK. 3. Section of Rheumatology, Division of Internal Medicine, University of Chicago, 5841 S Maryland Ave MC 0930, Chicago, IL, 60637-1470, USA. didem.saygin@uchospitals.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim is to summarize the outcome measures used in the assessment and monitoring of muscle function and physical activity in the management idiopathic inflammatory myopathy. RECENT FINDINGS: Assessment techniques have progressed and matured over the past decade, and new options are now available to clinicians working in this field. Newer outcome measures, including the Functional Index-3 and wearable motion sensors are reviewed, as well as the current application of more established measures. The available outcome measures for use in clinical practice in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies with regard to muscle function and physical activity have expanded over the past 15 years. There are valid and reliable options for several domains and methods for assessing these factors. In a busy clinical setting, efficiency is important, but there also needs to be considered the choosing of tools that work together to give the fullest picture of the status of the patient.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim is to summarize the outcome measures used in the assessment and monitoring of muscle function and physical activity in the management idiopathic inflammatory myopathy. RECENT FINDINGS: Assessment techniques have progressed and matured over the past decade, and new options are now available to clinicians working in this field. Newer outcome measures, including the Functional Index-3 and wearable motion sensors are reviewed, as well as the current application of more established measures. The available outcome measures for use in clinical practice in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies with regard to muscle function and physical activity have expanded over the past 15 years. There are valid and reliable options for several domains and methods for assessing these factors. In a busy clinical setting, efficiency is important, but there also needs to be considered the choosing of tools that work together to give the fullest picture of the status of the patient.
Authors: Tina Esfandiary; Jin Kyun Park; Helene Alexanderson; Malin Regardt; Merrilee Needham; Ingrid de Groot; Catherine Sarver; Ingrid E Lundberg; Marianne de Visser; Yeong Wook Song; Dana DiRenzo; Clifton O Bingham; Lisa Christopher-Stine; Christopher A Mecoli Journal: Semin Arthritis Rheum Date: 2020-06-17 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Robert P Wilder; Jill Amanda Greene; Kathryne L Winters; William B Long; K Gubler; Richard F Edlich Journal: J Long Term Eff Med Implants Date: 2006
Authors: Rohit Aggarwal; Lisa G Rider; Nicolino Ruperto; Nastaran Bayat; Brian Erman; Brian M Feldman; Chester V Oddis; Anthony A Amato; Hector Chinoy; Robert G Cooper; Maryam Dastmalchi; David Fiorentino; David Isenberg; James D Katz; Andrew Mammen; Marianne de Visser; Steven R Ytterberg; Ingrid E Lundberg; Lorinda Chung; Katalin Danko; Ignacio García-De la Torre; Yeong Wook Song; Luca Villa; Mariangela Rinaldi; Howard Rockette; Peter A Lachenbruch; Frederick W Miller; Jiri Vencovsky Journal: Arthritis Rheumatol Date: 2017-04-06 Impact factor: 10.995
Authors: Pierrette Baschung Pfister; Eling D de Bruin; Iris Sterkele; Britta Maurer; Rob A de Bie; Ruud H Knols Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-03-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Floranne C Ernste; Christopher Chong; Cynthia S Crowson; Tanaz A Kermani; Orla Ni Mhuircheartaigh; Helene Alexanderson Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 4.666