Problems persist in reporting of methods and results for the WOMAC measure in hip and knee osteoarthritis trials

B Copsey, J Y Thompson, K Vadher, U Ali, S J Dutton, R Fitzpatrick, S E Lamb, J A Cook, B Copsey, J Y Thompson, K Vadher, U Ali, S J Dutton, R Fitzpatrick, S E Lamb, J A Cook

Abstract

Purpose: The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) is a commonly used outcome measure for osteoarthritis. There are different versions of the WOMAC (Likert, visual analogue or numeric scales). A previous review of trials published before 2010 found poor reporting and inconsistency in how the WOMAC was used. This review explores whether these problems persist.

Methods: This systematic review included randomised trials of hip and/or knee osteoarthritis published in 2016 that used the WOMAC. Data were extracted on the version used, score range, analysis and results of the WOMAC, and whether these details were clearly reported.

Results: This review included 62 trials and 41 reported the WOMAC total score. The version used and item range for the WOMAC total score were unclear in 44% (n = 18/41) and 24% (n = 10/41) of trials, respectively. The smallest total score range was 0-10 (calculated by averaging 24 items scored 0-10); the largest was 0-2400 (calculated by summing 24 items scored 0-100). All trials reported the statistical analysis methods but only 29% reported the between-group mean difference and 95% confidence interval.

Conclusion: Details on the use and scoring of the WOMAC were often not reported. We recommend that trials report the version of the WOMAC and the score range used. The between-group treatment effect and corresponding confidence interval should be reported. If all the items of the WOMAC are collected, the total score and individual subscale scores should be presented. Better reporting would facilitate the interpretation, comparison and synthesis of the WOMAC score in trials.

Keywords: Osteoarthritis; Randomised trial; Reporting; WOMAC.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow of studies
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Use of WOMAC total and subscales as a trial outcome measure (n = 62) (Number of trials shown in graph bars, percentage of trials shown on y-axis)

References

    1. Boers M, Kirwan JR, Wells G, Beaton D, Gossec L, d’Agostino MA, et al. Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT filter 2.0. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2014;67(7):745–753. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.11.013.
    1. Kyte, D. G. (2015). The methodological and ethical issues associated with patient-reported outcome measurement in clinical trials. Ph.D., University of Birmingham.
    1. Woolacott NF, Corbett MS, Rice SJ. The use and reporting of WOMAC in the assessment of the benefit of physical therapies for the pain of osteoarthritis of the knee: Findings from a systematic review of clinical trials. Rheumatology. 2012;51(8):1440–1446. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kes043.
    1. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. 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. The Journal of Rheumatology. 1988;15(12):1833–1840.
    1. Bellamy N, Kean WF, Buchanan WW, Gerecz-Simon E, Campbell J. Double blind randomized controlled trial of sodium meclofenamate (Meclomen) and diclofenac sodium (Voltaren): Post validation reapplication of the WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index. The Journal of Rheumatology. 1992;19(1):153–159.
    1. McGrory BJ, Harris WH. Can the western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) osteoarthritis index be used to evaluate different hip joints in the same patient? The Journal of Arthroplasty. 1996;11(7):841–844. doi: 10.1016/S0883-5403(96)80184-7.
    1. Wolfe F, Kong SX. Rasch analysis of the Western Ontario MacMaster questionnaire (WOMAC) in 2205 patients with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and fibromyalgia. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 1999;58(9):563–568. doi: 10.1136/ard.58.9.563.
    1. Bond M, Davis A, Lohmander S, Hawker G. Responsiveness of the OARSI-OMERACT osteoarthritis pain and function measures. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage. 2012;20(6):541–547. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2012.03.001.
    1. Collins NJ, Misra D, Felson DT, Crossley KM, Roos EM. Measures of knee function: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical Function Short Form (KOOS-PS), Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADL), Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Activity Rating Scale (ARS), and Tegner Activity Score (TAS) Arthritis Care & Research. 2011;63(0 11):S208–S228. doi: 10.1002/acr.20632.
    1. Kersten P, White PJ, Tennant A. The visual analogue WOMAC 3.0 scale—internal validity and responsiveness of the VAS version. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2010;11:80–80. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-11-80.
    1. Katz JN, Brophy RH, Chaisson CE, de Chaves L, Cole BJ, Dahm DL, et al. Surgery versus physical therapy for a meniscal tear and osteoarthritis. New England Journal of Medicine. 2013;368(18):1675–1684. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1301408.
    1. Strange S, Whitehouse MR, Beswick AD, Board T, Burston A, Burston B, et al. One-stage or two-stage revision surgery for prosthetic hip joint infection–the INFORM trial: A study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2016;17:90. doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1213-8.
    1. Smith PA. Intra-articular autologous conditioned plasma injections provide safe and efficacious treatment for knee osteoarthritis: An FDA-sanctioned, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2016;44(4):884–891. doi: 10.1177/0363546515624678.
    1. Underwood M, Ashby D, Carnes D, Castelnuovo E, Cross P, Harding G, et al. Topical or oral ibuprofen for chronic knee pain in older people. The TOIB study. Health Technology Assessment. 2008
    1. Palmer S, Domaille M, Cramp F, Walsh N, Pollock J, Kirwan J, et al. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation as an adjunct to education and exercise for knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Care & Research. 2014;66(3):387–394. doi: 10.1002/acr.22147.
    1. Monaghan B, Grant T, Hing W, Cusack T. Functional exercise after total hip replacement (FEATHER): A randomised control trial. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2012;13:237. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-13-237.
    1. FDA . Clinical development programs for drugs, devices and biological products intended for the treatment of OA. Draft guidance. Bethesda: FDA; 1999.
    1. Goldberg VM, Buckwalter J, Halpin M, Jiranek W, Mihalko W, Pinzur M, et al. Recommendations of the OARSI FDA Osteoarthritis Devices Working Group. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2011;19(5):509–514. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2011.02.017.
    1. Reginster JY, Reiter-Niesert S, Bruyere O, Berenbaum F, Brandi ML, Branco J, et al. Recommendations for an update of the 2010 European regulatory guideline on clinical investigation of medicinal products used in the treatment of osteoarthritis and reflections about related clinically relevant outcomes: Expert consensus statement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2015;23(12):2086–2093. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2015.07.001.
    1. Cooper C, Adachi JD, Bardin T, Berenbaum F, Flamion B, Jonsson H, et al. How to define responders in osteoarthritis. Current Medical Research and Opinion. 2013;29(6):719–729. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2013.792793.
    1. Mithoefer K, Saris DBF, Farr J, Kon E, Zaslav K, Cole BJ, et al. Guidelines for the design and conduct of clinical studies in knee articular cartilage repair: International cartilage repair society recommendations based on current scientific evidence and standards of clinical care. Cartilage. 2011;2(2):100–121. doi: 10.1177/1947603510392913.
    1. Ahmad MA, Xypnitos FN, Giannoudis PV. Measuring hip outcomes: Common scales and checklists. Injury. 2011;42(3):259–264. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.11.052.
    1. Gagnier JJ, Mullins M, Huang H, Marinac-Dabic D, Ghambaryan A, Eloff B, et al. A systematic review of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures used in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. The Journal of Arthroplasty. 2017;32(5):1688–1697. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.12.052.
    1. Harris K, Dawson J, Gibbons E, Lim CR, Beard DJ, Fitzpatrick R, et al. Systematic review of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures used in patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty. Patient Related Outcome Measures. 2016;7:101–108. doi: 10.2147/PROM.S97774.
    1. Gossec L, Hawker G, Davis AM, Maillefert JF, Lohmander LS, Altman R, et al. OMERACT/OARSI initiative to define states of severity and indication for joint replacement in hip and knee osteoarthritis. The Journal of Rheumatology. 2007;34(6):1432–1435.
    1. Howe TE, Dawson LJ, Syme G, Duncan L, Reid J. Evaluation of outcome measures for use in clinical practice for adults with musculoskeletal conditions of the knee: A systematic review. Manual Therapy. 2012;17(2):100–118. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2011.07.002.
    1. Norman R, King MT, Clarke D, Viney R, Cronin P, Street D. Does mode of administration matter? Comparison of online and face-to-face administration of a time trade-off task. Quality of Life Research. 2010;19(4):499–508. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9609-5.
    1. Noyes FR. Noyes’ knee disorders: Surgery, rehabilitation, clinical outcomes e-book. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2016.
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c332. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c332.
    1. Copsey B, Dutton S, Fitzpatrick R, Lamb SE, Cook JA. Current practice in methodology and reporting of the sample size calculation in randomised trials of hip and knee osteoarthritis: A protocol for a systematic review. Trials. 2017;18(1):466. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-2209-8.
    1. Arden NK, Cro S, Sheard S, Dore CJ, Bara A, Tebbs SA, et al. The effect of vitamin D supplementation on knee osteoarthritis, the VIDEO study: A randomised controlled trial. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2016;24(11):1858–1866. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2016.05.020.
    1. Dougados M, Leclaire P, van der Heijde D, Bloch DA, Bellamy N, Altman RD. Response criteria for clinical trials on osteoarthritis of the knee and hip: A report of the Osteoarthritis Research Society International Standing Committee for Clinical Trials response criteria initiative. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2000;8(6):395–403. doi: 10.1053/joca.2000.0361.
    1. Moorthy S, Codi SR, Surendher R, Manimekalai K. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of tramadol versus tapentadol in acute osteoarthritic knee pain: A randomized, controlled trial. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research. 2016;9(3):1–4.
    1. Angers M, Svotelis A, Balg F, Allard J-P. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale for use in French-speaking populations. Canadian Journal of Surgery. 2016;59(2):123–127. doi: 10.1503/cjs.010415.
    1. Golightly YM, DeVellis RF, Nelson AE, Hannan MT, Lohmander LS, Renner JB, et al. Psychometric properties of the foot and ankle outcome score in a community-based study of adults with and without osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care & Research. 2014;66(3):395–403. doi: 10.1002/acr.22162.
    1. Hauber AB, Arden NK, Mohamed AF, Johnson FR, Peloso PM, Watson DJ, et al. A discrete-choice experiment of United Kingdom patients’ willingness to risk adverse events for improved function and pain control in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013;21(2):289–297. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2012.11.007.
    1. Bolognese JA, Schnitzer TJ, Ehrich EW. Response relationship of VAS and Likert scales in osteoarthritis efficacy measurement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2003;11(7):499–507. doi: 10.1016/S1063-4584(03)00082-7.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅