Assessing functional health status in adults with haemophilia: Towards a preliminary core set of clinimetric instruments based on a literature search in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Osteoarthritis

Haemophilia

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 308-318

  De Kleijn, P ^a,b   Van Genderen, F R ^a,b   Van Meeteren, N L U ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^c Academy of Health Sciences Utrecht   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Clinimetric instruments; Functional health status; Haemophilia; ICF; Literature study; Physical therapy

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CLASSIFICATION; CLINICAL EXAMINATION; DISABILITY; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HEALTH STATUS; HEMOPHILIA; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDLINE; MORPHOMETRICS; OSTEOARTHRITIS; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOMETRY; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS; SELF REPORT; TASK PERFORMANCE; VALIDATION PROCESS;

ADULT; ARTHRITIS, RHEUMATOID; DISABILITY EVALUATION; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HEMOPHILIA A; HUMANS; OSTEOARTHRITIS; PSYCHOMETRICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 22744458638     PISSN: 13518216     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2005.01117.x     Document Type: Review

References (83)

1. Roosendaal G, Lafeber FPJG. Blood-induced joint damage in hemophilia. Semin Thromb Hemost 2003; 29: 37-42.
2. Triemstra AHM, Van der Ploeg HM, Smit C, Rosendaal FR. Hemofilie in nederland 4. Verslag van een landelijk onderzoek onder mensen met hemofilie. Amsterdam-VU Leiden-RUL/AZL, 1999.
3. Jette AM. Physical disablement concepts for physical therapy research and practice. Phys Ther 1994; 74: 380-6.
4. Gilbert MS. Prophylaxis: musculoskeletal evaluation. Semin Hematol 1993; 30: 3-6.
5. Engel GL. The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science 1977; 196: 129-36.
6. Verbrugge LM, Jette AM. The disablement process. Soc Sci Med 1994; 38: 2-13.
7. WHO. ICF Introduction. WHA 54.21, 2001 (22-5-2001): 1-25.
8. De Kleijn P, Heijnen L, Van Meeteren NLU. Clinimetric instruments to assess functional health status in patients with haemophilia: a literature review. Haemophilia 2002; 8: 419-27.
9. Crosby LJ. Stress factors, emotional stress and rheumatoide arthritis disease activity. J Adv Nurs 1988; 13: 452-61.
10. Van Meeteren NLU, Strato I, Van Veldhoven NHMJ et al. The utility of the Dutch Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales 2 for assessment of health status in individuals with hemophilia: a pilot study. Haemophilia 2000; 6: 664-71.
11. Roosendaal G, Van Rinsum AC, Vianen ME et al. Haemophilic arthropathy resembles degenerative rather than inflammatory joint disease. Histopathology 1999; 34: 144-53.
12. Roosendaal G, Vianen ME, Marx JJM et al. Blood-induced joint damage; A Human In Vitro Study. Arthrit Rheum 1999; 42: 1025-32.
13. Bellamy N. Clinimetric concepts in outcome assessment: the OMERACT filter. J Rheumatol 1999; 26: 948-50.
14. Wolfe F, Lassere M, Van der Heijde D et al. Preliminary core set of domains and reporting requirements for longitudinal observational studies in rheumatology. J Rheumatol 1999; 26: 484-9.
15. Hidding A, van Santen M, de Klerk E et al. Comparison between self-report measures and clinical observations of functional disability in ankylosing spondylitis, rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia. J Rheumatol 1994; 21: 818-23.
16. Sim J, Arnell P. Measurement validity in physical therapy research. Phys Ther 1993; 73: 48-56.
17. Cronbach LJ, Rajaratnam N, Glesser GC. Theory of generalizability: a liberalization of reliability theory. Br J Stat Psychol 1963; 16: 137-63.
18. Jaeschke R, Guyatt G. How to develop and validate a new quality of life instrument. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life Assessments in Clinical Trials Ch. 5. New York: Raven Press Ltd, 1990: 47-56.
19. Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull 1959; 56: 81-105.
20. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Validity. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide To Their Development And Use Ch. 11. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, 1989: 106-25.
21. Guyatt G, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 171-8.
22. Ortiz Z, Shea B, Dieguez MG et al. The responsiveness of generic quality of life instruments in rheumatic diseases. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Rheumatol 1999; 26: 210-6.
23. Wells G, Boers M, Shea B et al. Sensitivity to change of generic quality of life instruments in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: preliminary findings in the generic health OMERACT study. J Rheumatol 1999; 26: 217-21.
24. Stenström CH, Nisell R. Assessment of disease consequences in rheumatoid arthritis: a survey of methods classified according to the international classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps. Arthritis Care Res 1997; 10: 135-50.
25. Bellamy N, Kirwan JR, Boers M et al. 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; 24: 799-802.
26. Bellamy N. Osteoarthritis clinical trials: candidate variables and clinimetric properties. J Rheumatol 1997; 24: 768-78.
27. Cheah SY, Clark CC, Goldberg L, Li Wan Po A, Phillips R. Outcome measures, pooled index and quality of life instruments in rheumatoid arthritis. J Clin Pharm Ther 1996; 21: 297-316.
28. Bellamy N. Outcome measurement in osteoarthritis clinical trials. J Rheumatol 1995; 22: 49-51.
29. Sangha O, Liang MH. Assessment outcomes of clinical drug trials in osteoarthritis. Curr Opin Rheumatol 1995; 7: 352-5.
30. Buchbinder R, Bombardier C, Yeung M, Tugwell P. Which outcome measures should be used in Rheumatoid Arthritis clinical trials? Arthritis Rheum 1995; 38: 1568-80.
31. Tugwell P, Boers M. Developing consensus on preliminary core efficacy endpoints for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. J Rheumatol 1993; 20: 555-6.
32. Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Boers M et al. The American college of rheumatology preliminary core set of disease activity measures for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. Arthritis Rheum 1993; 36: 729-40.
33. Van der Heide A, Jacobs JWG, Dinant HJ, Bijlsma JW. The impact of endpoint measures in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. Semin Arthritis Rbeum 1992; 21: 287-94.
34. Bombardier C, Raboud J, Auranofin cooperating group. A comparison on health-related quality-of-life measures for rheumatoid arthritis research. Control Clin Trials 1991; 12: 243S-56S.
35. Hirano PC, Laurent DD, Lorig K. Arthritis patient education studies, 1987-1991: a review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns 1994; 24: 9-54.
36. Sun Y, Sturmer T, Gunther KP, Brenner H. Reliability and validity of clinical outcome measurements of osteoarthritis of the hip and knee: a review of the literature. Clin Rheumatol 1997; 16: 185-98.
37. Wong AL, Wong WK, Harker J et al. Patient self-report tender and swollen joint counts in early rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 1999; 26: 2551-61.
38. Hernández-Cruz B, Cardiel M. Intra-observer reliability of commonly used outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 1998; 16: 459-62.
39. Vliet Vlieland TPM, Van den Ende CHM, Breedveld FC, Hazes JMW. Evaluation of joint mobility in rheumatoid arthritis trials: the value of the EPM-range of motion scale. J Rheumatol 1993; 20: 2010-4.
40. Rothstein JM, Miller PJ, Roettger RF. Goniometric reliability in a clinical setting. Phys Ther 1983; 63: 1611-5.
41. Goggia PP, Braatz JH, Rose SJ, Norton BJ. Reliability and validity of goniometric measurements at the knee. Phys Ther 1987; 67: 192-5.
42. Petherick M, Rheault W, Kimble S, Lechner C, Senear V. Concurrent validity and intertester reliability of universal and fluid-based goniometers for active elbow range of motion. Phys Ther 1988; 68: 966-9.
43. Elveru RA, Rothstein JM, Lamb RL. Goniometric reliability in a clinical setting; subtalar and ankle joint measurements. Phys Thera 1988; 68: 672-7.
44. Vliet Vlieland TPM, Zwinderman AH, Breedveld FC, Hazes JMW. Measurement of morning stiffness in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 757-63.
45. Lundeberg T, Lund I, Dahlin L et al. Reliability and responsiveness of three different pain assessments. J Rehabil Med 2001; 33: 279-83.
46. Tamiya N, Araki S, Ohi G et al. Assessment of pain, depression, and anxiety by visual analogue scale in Japanese women with rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Caring Sci 2002; 16: 137-41.
47. Tait RC, Chibnall JT. Development of a brief version of the survey of pain attitudes. Pain 1997; 70: 229-35.
48. Regan CA, Lorig K, Thoresen CE. Arthritis appraisal and ways of coping: scale development. Arthritis Care Res 1988; 1: 139-50.
49. Lindroth Y, Strombeck B, Brossner M, Gullberg B, Wollheim FA. Learned helplessness and its correlation to impairment, pain, anxiety and depression in rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol 1994; 23: 299-304.
50. Nicassio PM, Wallston KA, Callahan LF, Herbert M, Pincus T. The measurement of helplessness in rheumatoid arthritis. The development of the arthritis helplessness index. J Rheumatol 1985; 12: 462-7.
51. Norén AM, Bogren U, Bolin J, Stenström CH. Balance assessment in patients with peripheral arthritis: applicability and reliability of some clinical assessments. Physiother Res Int 2001; 6: 193-204.
52. Pouchot J, Guillemin F, Coste J et al. Validity, reliability, and sensitivity to change of a French version of the arthritis impact measurement scales 2 (AIMS2) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with methotrexate. J Rheumatol 1996; 23: 52-60.
53. Archenholtz B, Bjelle A. Reliability, validity, and sensivity of a swedish version of the revised and expanded arthritis impact measurement scales (AIMS2). J Rheumatol 1997; 24: 1370-7.
54. Riemsma RP, Rasker JJ, Houtman PM, Van Paassen FIC, Wiegman O. Evaluation of a Dutch version of the AIMS2 for patients with rheumatoid Arthritis. Br J Rheumatol 1996; 35: 755-60.
55. Katz JN, Larson M, Phillips CB, Fossel AH, Liang MH. Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer health status instruments. Med Care 1992; 30: 917-25.
56. Salén BA, Spangfort EV, Nygren AL, Nordemar R. The Disability Rating Index: an instrument for the assessment of disability in clinical settings. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 1423-35.
57. Budiman-Mak E, Conrad KJ, Roach KE. The foot function index; a measure of foot pain and disability. J Clin Epidemiol 1991; 44: 561-70.
58. Stucki G, Meier D, Stucki S et al. Evaluation of a German questionnaire of the Lequesne cox- and gonarthrosis indices. Zeitschrift für Rheumatologie 1996; 55: 50-7.
59. Stucki G, Sangha O, Stucki S et al. Comparison of the WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) osteoarthritis index and and a self-report format of the self-administered Lequesne-Algofunctional index in patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 1998; 6: 441-2.
60. Binkley JM, Stratford PW, Lott SA, Riddle DL. The lower extremity functional scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. Phys Ther 1999; 79: 371-83.
61. Wright JG, Young NL. A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. J Epidemiol 1997; 50: 239-46.
62. Chatman AB, Hyams SP, Neel JM et al. The patient-specific functional scale: measurement properties in patients with knee dysfunction. Phys Ther 1997; 77: 820-8.
63. Bakker C, Van der Linden S, Van Santen-Hoeufft M, Bolwijn P, Hidding A. Problem elicitation to assess patient priorities in ankylosing spondylitis and fibromyalgia. J Rheumatol 1995; 22: 1304-10.
64. Kosinski M, Keller SD, Hatoum HT, Xiaoudong Kong S, Ware JE. The SF-36 health survey as a generic outcome measure in clincal trials of patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions and score reliability. Med Care 1999; 37: MS10-22.
65. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M. Sf-36 Health Survey: Manual And Interpretation Guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 2001.
66. Husted JA, Gladman DD, Farewell VT, Long JA, Cook RJ. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire in patients with psoriatic arthritis. J Rheumatol 1997; 24: 511-7.
67. Roos EM, Klässbo M, Lohmander LS. WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness in patients with arthroscopically assessed osteoarthritis. Scand J Rheumatol 1999; 28: 210-5.
68. Söderman P, Malchau H. Validity and reliability of Swedish WOMAC osteoarthritis index. A self-administered disease-specific questionnaire (WOMAC) versus generic instruments (SF-36 and NHP). Acta Orthop Scand 2000; 71: 39-46.
69. Boyle MH, Furlong WJ, Feeny D, Hatcher J. Reliability of the health utilities - mark III used in the 1991 cycle 6 Canadian general social survey health questionnaire. Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 249-57.
70. Grootendorst P, Feeny D, Furlong WJ. Health utilities index mark 3. Evidence of construct validity for stroke and arthritis in a population health survey. Med Care 2000; 38: 290-9.
71. Jenkinson C, Mant J, Wade D, Winner S. The London handicap scale: a re-evaluation of its validity using standard scoring and simple summation. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2000; 68: 365-7.
72. De Bruin AF, De Witte LP, Diederiks JPM. The sickness impact profile: SIP68, a short generic version. First evaluation of the reliability and reproducibility. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 863-71.
73. Nanda U, McLendon PM, Andresen EM, Armbrecht E. The SIP68: an abbreviated sickness impact profile for disability outcomes research. Qual Life Res 2003; 12: 583-95.
74. Ferraz MB, Oliveira LM, Araujo PMP, Atra E, Walter SD. EPM-ROM Scale: an evaluative instrument to be used in rheumatoid arthritis trials. Clin Exp Rheumatol 1990; 8: 491-4.
75. Hunt DL, McKibbon KA. Locating and appraising systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 1997; 126: 532-8.
76. De Joode E, Van Meeteren NLU, Van den Berg HM, De Kleijn P, Helders PJM. Validity of health status measurements with the Dutch Arthritis impact and measurement scales 2 in individuals with severe haemophilia. Haemophilia 2001; 7:190-7.
77. Fischer K, Van der Bom JG, Van den Berg HM. Health-related quality of life as outcome parameter in haemophilia treatment. Haematologica 2003; 9: 75-82.
78. Szende A, Schramm W, Flood E et al. Health-related-quality of life assessment in adult haemophilia patients: a systematic review and evaluation of instruments. Haemophilia 2003; 9: 678-87.
79. Leidy NK, Revicki DA, Geneste B. Recommendations for evaluating the validity of quality of life claims for labeling and promotion. Value Health 1999; 2: 113-27.
80. Stucki G, Sigl T. Assessment of the impact of disease of the individual. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2003; 17: 451-73.
81. van Genderen FR, Van Meeteren NLU, Van der Bom JG et al. Towards a haemophilia activities list (HAL). Haemophilia 2002; 8: 486.
82. Kennedy D, Stratford PW, Pagura SMC, Walsh M, Woodhouse LJ. Comparison of gender and group differences in self-report and physical performance measures in total hip and knee arthroplasty candidates. J Arthroplasty 2002; 17: 70-7.
83. Perenboom RJM, Chorus AMJ. Measuring participation according to the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Disabil Rehabil 2003; 25: 577-87.