Epidemiology of osteoarthritis: Zoetermeer survey. Comparison of radiological osteoarthritis in a Dutch population with that in 10 other populations

J L van Saase, L K van Romunde, A Cats, J P Vandenbroucke, H A Valkenburg, J L van Saase, L K van Romunde, A Cats, J P Vandenbroucke, H A Valkenburg

Abstract

The prevalence of mild and severe radiological osteoarthritis was investigated in a random sample of 6585 inhabitants of a Dutch village. Radiographs were graded 0-4 according to the criteria described by Kellgren and Lawrence. The prevalence of radiological osteoarthritis increased strongly with age and was highest for cervical spine (peak: men 84.8%, women 84.3%), lumbar spine (peak: 71.9%, women 67.3%), and distal interphalangeal joints of the hands (peak: men 64.4%, women 76%). Prevalence did not exceed 10% in sacroiliac joints, lateral carpometacarpal joints, and tarsometatarsal joints. Severe radiological osteoarthritis (grade 3 or grade 4) was uncommon under age 45; in elderly persons the prevalence of severe radiological osteoarthritis did not exceed 20% except for the cervical and lumbar spine, distal interphalangeal joints of the hands and, in women only, metacarpophalangeal joints, first carpometacarpal joints, first metatarsophalangeal joints, and knees. Overall, differences between men and women were small except for hips and knees; however, severe radiological osteoarthritis was found in a higher proportion in most of the joints in women. Our data were compared with data from similar population surveys. The slope between joint involvement and age was strikingly constant for most of the joints. Differences between populations were mainly differences in level. These differences of prevalence of radiological osteoarthritis may be attributed to interobserver differences--that is, different criteria used to establish radiological osteoarthritis, in addition to genetic or environmental factors, or both.

References

    1. Int J Epidemiol. 1985 Jun;14(2):276-84
    1. Ann Rheum Dis. 1982 Aug;41(4):325-34
    1. Lancet. 1979 Dec 22-29;2(8156-8157):1326-30
    1. Ann Rheum Dis. 1970 Jan;29(1):15-31
    1. Ann Rheum Dis. 1975 Oct;34(5):451-56
    1. Lancet. 1972 Mar 4;1(7749):519-22
    1. J Chronic Dis. 1970 Sep;23(3):151-9
    1. Ann Rheum Dis. 1976 Jun;35(3):274-8
    1. Ann Rheum Dis. 1969 Mar;28(2):121-38
    1. Ann Rheum Dis. 1968 Jul;27(4):326-32
    1. Ann Rheum Dis. 1966 Jan;25(1):1-24
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 1964 Feb;7:29-40
    1. J Rheumatol. 1988 Jul;15(7):1152-8
    1. Ann Intern Med. 1988 Jul 1;109(1):18-24
    1. J Rheumatol. 1987 May;14 Spec No:91-3
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 1986 Aug;29(8):1039-49
    1. J Chronic Dis. 1986;39(4):311-9
    1. Br J Rheumatol. 1985 Nov;24(4):321-5
    1. Clin Rheum Dis. 1985 Aug;11(2):271-96
    1. Clin Rheum Dis. 1985 Aug;11(2):187-202

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe