Responsiveness of the WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index As Compared with the SF-36 in Patients with Osteoarthritis of the Legs Undergoing a Comprehensive Rehabilitation Intervention

Overview

Journal Ann Rheum Dis

Specialty Rheumatology

Date 2001 Aug 15

PMID 11502609

Citations 102

Authors

F Angst

A Aeschlimann

W Steiner

G Stucki

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the responsiveness of the condition-specific Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis (OA) index (WOMAC) and the generic Short Form-36 (SF-36) in patients with OA of the legs undergoing a comprehensive inpatient rehabilitation intervention.

Methods: A prospective follow up study of consecutively referred inpatients of a rehabilitation clinic was made. The patients included fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology criteria for knee or hip OA and underwent both passive and, particularly, active physical therapy for three to four weeks. Responsiveness assessment was performed using the standardised response mean (SRM), effect size, and Guyatt's responsiveness statistic between admission and discharge (end of rehabilitation) and then again between admission and three months later. For pain and function the SRMs were stratified by sex and OA joint. Effects were tested by the t test and SRMs of different scales were compared by the jack knife test.

Results: At the three month follow up, complete data were obtained for 223 patients. In general, the three responsiveness statistics showed a similar order of responsiveness. For both instruments, the pain scales were more responsive than the function scales. The responsiveness of the pain scale of both instruments was comparable (SRM=0.723 for WOMAC and SRM=0.528 for SF-36 at the end of rehabilitation; SRM=0.377 for WOMAC and SRM=0.468 for SF-36 at the three month follow up). In the measurement of function, the WOMAC was significantly more responsive than the SF-36 (SRMs, end of rehabilitation: 0.628 v 0.249; three month follow up: 0.235 v -0.001). Responsiveness tended to be higher in women and in knee OA than in men and hip OA.

Conclusions: Both instruments, the WOMAC and the SF-36, capture improvement in pain in patients undergoing comprehensive inpatient rehabilitation intervention. Functional improvement can be detected better by the WOMAC than by the SF-36. All the other scales of both instruments were more weakly responsive.

Citing Articles

The Effect of Intravascular Laser Irradiation of Blood on Serum Biomarkers and Clinical Outcome in Knee Osteoarthritis Patients: A Double-Blind Randomized Control Trial.

Su Y, Shen Y, Chang C, Pan K, Huang S, Chen L Int J Mol Sci. 2025; 25(24.

PMID: 39769371 PMC: 11677140. DOI: 10.3390/ijms252413608.

Effect of the telemedicine-supported multicomponent exercise therapy in patients with knee osteoarthritis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Feng Y, Wu Y, Liu H, Bao T, Wang C, Wang Z Trials. 2023; 24(1):729.

PMID: 37964273 PMC: 10647045. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-023-07749-4.

Minimal important change and difference for knee osteoarthritis outcome measurement tools after non-surgical interventions: a systematic review.

Silva M, Perriman D, Fearon A, Couldrick J, Scarvell J BMJ Open. 2023; 13(5):e063026.

PMID: 37202126 PMC: 10201231. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063026.

Improvement of Pain and Function by Using Botulinum Toxin Type A Injection in Patients with an Osteoarthritic Knee with Patellar Malalignment: An Electromyographic Study.

Tang A, Chen C, Wu S, Tang S Life (Basel). 2023; 13(1).

PMID: 36676044 PMC: 9863177. DOI: 10.3390/life13010095.

The current state of the osteoarthritis drug development pipeline: a comprehensive narrative review of the present challenges and future opportunities.

Kim H, Seo J, Lee Y, Park K, Perry T, Arden N Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2022; 14:1759720X221085952.

PMID: 36504595 PMC: 9732806. DOI: 10.1177/1759720X221085952.

References

Theiler R, Ghosh P, Brooks P . Clinical, biochemical and imaging methods of assessing osteoarthritis and clinical trials with agents claiming 'chondromodulating' activity. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 1994; 2(1):1-23. DOI: 10.1016/s1063-4584(05)80002-0. View

Boers M, Brooks P, Strand C, Tugwell P . The OMERACT filter for Outcome Measures in Rheumatology. J Rheumatol. 1998; 25(2):198-9. View

Bellamy N, BUCHANAN W . A preliminary evaluation of the dimensionality and clinical importance of pain and disability in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. Clin Rheumatol. 1986; 5(2):231-41. DOI: 10.1007/BF02032362. View

Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G . Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis. 1987; 40(2):171-8. DOI: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90069-5. View

Bellamy N, BUCHANAN W, Goldsmith C, Campbell J, Stitt L . Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988; 15(12):1833-40. View

Kazis L, Anderson J, Meenan R . Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989; 27(3 Suppl):S178-89. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-198903001-00015. View

Bellamy N . Pain assessment in osteoarthritis: experience with the WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1989; 18(4 Suppl 2):14-7. DOI: 10.1016/0049-0172(89)90010-3. View

Bellamy N, BUCHANAN W, Goldsmith C, Campbell J, Duku E . Signal measurement strategies: are they feasible and do they offer any advantage in outcome measurement in osteoarthritis?. Arthritis Rheum. 1990; 33(5):739-45. DOI: 10.1002/art.1780330518. View

Liang M, Fossel A, Larson M . Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care. 1990; 28(7):632-42. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199007000-00008. View

10.

Altman R, Alarcon G, Appelrouth D, Bloch D, Borenstein D, Brandt K . The American College of Rheumatology criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis of the hip. Arthritis Rheum. 1991; 34(5):505-14. DOI: 10.1002/art.1780340502. View

11.

Bellamy N, Kean W, BUCHANAN W, Campbell J . Double blind randomized controlled trial of sodium meclofenamate (Meclomen) and diclofenac sodium (Voltaren): post validation reapplication of the WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index. J Rheumatol. 1992; 19(1):153-9. View

12.

Kantz M, Harris W, Levitsky K, Ware Jr J, Davies A . Methods for assessing condition-specific and generic functional status outcomes after total knee replacement. Med Care. 1992; 30(5 Suppl):MS240-52. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199205001-00024. View

13.

Katz J, Larson M, Phillips C, Fossel A, Liang M . Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer health status instruments. Med Care. 1992; 30(10):917-25. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199210000-00004. View

14.

Laupacis A, Bourne R, Rorabeck C, Feeny D, Wong C, Tugwell P . The effect of elective total hip replacement on health-related quality of life. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993; 75(11):1619-26. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-199311000-00006. View

15.

Lequesne M, Brandt K, Bellamy N, Moskowitz R, Menkes C, Pelletier J . Guidelines for testing slow acting drugs in osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol Suppl. 1994; 41:65-71; discussion 72-3. View

16.

Barr S, Bellamy N, BUCHANAN W, Chalmers A, Ford P, Kean W . A comparative study of signal versus aggregate methods of outcome measurement based on the WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. J Rheumatol. 1994; 21(11):2106-12. View

17.

Dieppe P . Therapeutic targets in osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol Suppl. 1995; 43:136-9. View

18.

Bellamy N . Outcome measurement in osteoarthritis clinical trials. J Rheumatol Suppl. 1995; 43:49-51. View

19.

Bessette L, Sangha O, Kuntz K, KELLER R, Lew R, Fossel A . Comparative responsiveness of generic versus disease-specific and weighted versus unweighted health status measures in carpal tunnel syndrome. Med Care. 1998; 36(4):491-502. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199804000-00005. View

20.

Roos E, Roos H, Lohmander L, Ekdahl C, Beynnon B . Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)--development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998; 28(2):88-96. DOI: 10.2519/jospt.1998.28.2.88. View