• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of annrheumdAnnals of the Rheumatic DiseasesView this articleSubmit a manuscriptReceive email alertsContact usBMJ
Ann Rheum Dis. Sep 2001; 60(9): 834–840.
PMCID: PMC1753825

Responsiveness of the WOMAC osteoarthritis index as compared with the SF-36 in patients with osteoarthritis of the legs undergoing a comprehensive rehabilitation intervention

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.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (118K).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Dieppe P. Therapeutic targets in osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol Suppl. 1995 Feb;43:136–139. [PubMed]
  • Bellamy N. Outcome measurement in osteoarthritis clinical trials. J Rheumatol Suppl. 1995 Feb;43:49–51. [PubMed]
  • Lequesne M, Brandt K, Bellamy N, Moskowitz R, Menkes CJ, Pelletier JP, Altman R. Guidelines for testing slow acting drugs in osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol Suppl. 1994 Sep;41:65–73. [PubMed]
  • Hawker G, Melfi C, Paul J, Green R, Bombardier C. Comparison of a generic (SF-36) and a disease specific (WOMAC) (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) instrument in the measurement of outcomes after knee replacement surgery. J Rheumatol. 1995 Jun;22(6):1193–1196. [PubMed]
  • 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 Mar;2(1):1–23. [PubMed]
  • Bellamy N, Buchanan WW. A preliminary evaluation of the dimensionality and clinical importance of pain and disability in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. Clin Rheumatol. 1986 Jun;5(2):231–241. [PubMed]
  • 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. J Rheumatol. 1988 Dec;15(12):1833–1840. [PubMed]
  • Bellamy N. Pain assessment in osteoarthritis: experience with the WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1989 May;18(4 Suppl 2):14–17. [PubMed]
  • Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Duku E. Signal measurement strategies: are they feasible and do they offer any advantage in outcome measurement in osteoarthritis? Arthritis Rheum. 1990 May;33(5):739–745. [PubMed]
  • 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. J Rheumatol. 1992 Jan;19(1):153–159. [PubMed]
  • Stucki G, Meier D, Stucki S, Michel BA, Tyndall AG, Dick W, Theiler R. Evaluation einer deutschen Version des WOMAC (Western Ontario und McMaster Universities) Arthroseindex. Z Rheumatol. 1996 Jan-Feb;55(1):40–49. [PubMed]
  • Boers M, Brooks P, Strand CV, Tugwell P. The OMERACT filter for Outcome Measures in Rheumatology. J Rheumatol. 1998 Feb;25(2):198–199. [PubMed]
  • Bellamy N, Kirwan J, Boers M, Brooks P, Strand V, Tugwell P, Altman R, Brandt K, Dougados M, Lequesne M. Recommendations for a core set of outcome measures for future phase III clinical trials in knee, hip, and hand osteoarthritis. Consensus development at OMERACT III. J Rheumatol. 1997 Apr;24(4):799–802. [PubMed]
  • Stucki G, Liang MH, Phillips C, Katz JN. The Short Form-36 is preferable to the SIP as a generic health status measure in patients undergoing elective total hip arthroplasty. Arthritis Care Res. 1995 Sep;8(3):174–181. [PubMed]
  • Kantz ME, Harris WJ, Levitsky K, Ware JE, Jr, Davies AR. Methods for assessing condition-specific and generic functional status outcomes after total knee replacement. Med Care. 1992 May;30(5 Suppl):MS240–MS252. [PubMed]
  • Wright JG, Young NL. A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 Mar;50(3):239–246. [PubMed]
  • Ruof J, Sangha O, Stucki G. Comparative responsiveness of 3 functional indices in ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol. 1999 Sep;26(9):1959–1963. [PubMed]
  • Laupacis A, Bourne R, Rorabeck C, Feeny D, Wong C, Tugwell P, Leslie K, Bullas R. The effect of elective total hip replacement on health-related quality of life. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993 Nov;75(11):1619–1626. [PubMed]
  • Altman R, Alarcón G, Appelrouth D, Bloch D, Borenstein D, Brandt K, Brown C, Cooke TD, Daniel W, Feldman D, et al. The American College of Rheumatology criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis of the hip. Arthritis Rheum. 1991 May;34(5):505–514. [PubMed]
  • Liang MH, Larson MG, Cullen KE, Schwartz JA. Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. Arthritis Rheum. 1985 May;28(5):542–547. [PubMed]
  • Ware JE, Jr, Gandek B. Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Nov;51(11):903–912. [PubMed]
  • Katz JN, Larson MG, Phillips CB, Fossel AH, Liang MH. Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer health status instruments. Med Care. 1992 Oct;30(10):917–925. [PubMed]
  • Stucki G, Liang MH, Fossel AH, Katz JN. Relative responsiveness of condition-specific and generic health status measures in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995 Nov;48(11):1369–1378. [PubMed]
  • Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care. 1990 Jul;28(7):632–642. [PubMed]
  • Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989 Mar;27(3 Suppl):S178–S189. [PubMed]
  • Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(2):171–178. [PubMed]
  • Bessette L, Sangha O, Kuntz KM, Keller RB, Lew RA, Fossel AH, Katz JN. Comparative responsiveness of generic versus disease-specific and weighted versus unweighted health status measures in carpal tunnel syndrome. Med Care. 1998 Apr;36(4):491–502. [PubMed]
  • Brazier JE, Harper R, Munro J, Walters SJ, Snaith ML. Generic and condition-specific outcome measures for people with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology (Oxford) 1999 Sep;38(9):870–877. [PubMed]
  • Barr S, Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Chalmers A, Ford PM, Kean WF, Kraag GR, Gerecz-Simon E, Campbell J. 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 Nov;21(11):2106–2112. [PubMed]
  • Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)--development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998 Aug;28(2):88–96. [PubMed]

Articles from Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases are provided here courtesy of BMJ Group

Formats:

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...

Links

  • Cited in Books
    Cited in Books
    PubMed Central articles cited in books
  • MedGen
    MedGen
    Related information in MedGen
  • PubMed
    PubMed
    PubMed citations for these articles

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...