The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository
Warning ePrints Soton is experiencing an issue with some file downloads not being available. We are working hard to fix this. Please bear with us.

Harmonising measures of knee and hip osteoarthritis in population-based cohort studies: an international study

Harmonising measures of knee and hip osteoarthritis in population-based cohort studies: an international study
Harmonising measures of knee and hip osteoarthritis in population-based cohort studies: an international study
Objective: population-based osteoarthritis (OA) cohorts provide vital data on risk factors and outcomes of OA, however the methods to define OA vary between cohorts. We aimed to provide recommendations for combining knee and hip OA data in extant and future population cohort studies, in order to facilitate informative individual participant level analyses.
Method: international OA experts met to make recommendations on: 1) defining OA by X-ray and/or pain; 2) compare The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)-type OA pain questions; 3) the comparability of the Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scale to NHANES-type OA pain questions; 4) the best radiographic scoring method; 5) the usefulness of other OA outcome measures. Key issues were explored using new analyses in two population-based OA cohorts (Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study; MOST and Osteoarthritis Initiative OAI).
Results: OA should be defined by both symptoms and radiographs, with symptoms alone as a secondary definition. Kellgren and Lawrence (K/L) grade ≥2 should be used to define radiographic OA (ROA). The variable wording of pain questions can result in varying prevalence between 41.0% and 75.4%, however questions where the time anchor is similar have high sensitivity and specificity (91.2% and 89.9% respectively). A threshold of 3 on a 0–20 scale (95% CI 2.1, 3.9) in the WOMAC pain subscale demonstrated equivalence with the preferred NHANES-type question.
Conclusion: this research provides recommendations, based on expert agreement, for harmonising and combining OA data in existing and future population-based cohorts.
1063-4584
872-879
Leyland, K.M.
291dd25c-247a-42bd-a51c-55c070d5213e
Gates, L.
bc67b8b8-110b-4358-8e1b-6f1d345bd503
Nevitt, M.
f5f21213-3469-48ad-8053-a9911d49b593
Felson, D.
87990fc1-6730-4739-9b18-1a027bc7484b
Bierma-Zeinstra, S.M.
c682a0d4-16c9-4d34-aec6-d53342074b5b
Conaghan, P.G.
7122ccbd-618d-4b64-a21f-4afaf594eef1
Engebretsen, L.
a720ef78-79cd-43db-b9dc-4f130267f727
Hochberg, M.
785e7c1f-2d2c-475c-8af2-9ef69acc7e7a
Hunter, D.J.
3e4d41e6-8818-40a6-b8d5-def0916e72fb
Jones, G
35e34a91-70c9-438a-931b-603a0a9f6ece
Jordan, J.M.
e6208733-af45-48af-949a-660e9d32db42
Judge, A.
c6a83964-1d7c-4aa8-b2bf-9c264d1e487d
Lohmander, L.S.
49c49f6f-5140-43fc-a33c-d7f8120b6640
Roos, E.M.
29473993-811f-4044-a220-4d6a83b2175b
Sanchez-Santos, M.T.
31b97d12-d959-400e-8a98-3b0be20559ed
Yoshimura, N.
a10d916f-afc1-4f89-a7e3-a690e16b4cdd
van Meurs, J.B.J.
ede43d4c-0e3c-4162-826c-20cbd56f7334
Batt, M.E.
598054b6-0f6b-4103-8085-ae8e49c553f3
Newton, J.
9ff979db-8951-4b68-9fd3-2917207d5d4a
Cooper, Cyrus
e05f5612-b493-4273-9b71-9e0ce32bdad6
Arden, N.K.
23af958d-835c-4d79-be54-4bbe4c68077f
Leyland, K.M.
291dd25c-247a-42bd-a51c-55c070d5213e
Gates, L.
bc67b8b8-110b-4358-8e1b-6f1d345bd503
Nevitt, M.
f5f21213-3469-48ad-8053-a9911d49b593
Felson, D.
87990fc1-6730-4739-9b18-1a027bc7484b
Bierma-Zeinstra, S.M.
c682a0d4-16c9-4d34-aec6-d53342074b5b
Conaghan, P.G.
7122ccbd-618d-4b64-a21f-4afaf594eef1
Engebretsen, L.
a720ef78-79cd-43db-b9dc-4f130267f727
Hochberg, M.
785e7c1f-2d2c-475c-8af2-9ef69acc7e7a
Hunter, D.J.
3e4d41e6-8818-40a6-b8d5-def0916e72fb
Jones, G
35e34a91-70c9-438a-931b-603a0a9f6ece
Jordan, J.M.
e6208733-af45-48af-949a-660e9d32db42
Judge, A.
c6a83964-1d7c-4aa8-b2bf-9c264d1e487d
Lohmander, L.S.
49c49f6f-5140-43fc-a33c-d7f8120b6640
Roos, E.M.
29473993-811f-4044-a220-4d6a83b2175b
Sanchez-Santos, M.T.
31b97d12-d959-400e-8a98-3b0be20559ed
Yoshimura, N.
a10d916f-afc1-4f89-a7e3-a690e16b4cdd
van Meurs, J.B.J.
ede43d4c-0e3c-4162-826c-20cbd56f7334
Batt, M.E.
598054b6-0f6b-4103-8085-ae8e49c553f3
Newton, J.
9ff979db-8951-4b68-9fd3-2917207d5d4a
Cooper, Cyrus
e05f5612-b493-4273-9b71-9e0ce32bdad6
Arden, N.K.
23af958d-835c-4d79-be54-4bbe4c68077f

Leyland, K.M., Gates, L., Nevitt, M., Felson, D., Bierma-Zeinstra, S.M., Conaghan, P.G., Engebretsen, L., Hochberg, M., Hunter, D.J., Jones, G, Jordan, J.M., Judge, A., Lohmander, L.S., Roos, E.M., Sanchez-Santos, M.T., Yoshimura, N., van Meurs, J.B.J., Batt, M.E., Newton, J., Cooper, Cyrus and Arden, N.K. (2018) Harmonising measures of knee and hip osteoarthritis in population-based cohort studies: an international study. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 26 (7), 872-879. (doi:10.1016/j.joca.2018.01.024).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Objective: population-based osteoarthritis (OA) cohorts provide vital data on risk factors and outcomes of OA, however the methods to define OA vary between cohorts. We aimed to provide recommendations for combining knee and hip OA data in extant and future population cohort studies, in order to facilitate informative individual participant level analyses.
Method: international OA experts met to make recommendations on: 1) defining OA by X-ray and/or pain; 2) compare The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)-type OA pain questions; 3) the comparability of the Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scale to NHANES-type OA pain questions; 4) the best radiographic scoring method; 5) the usefulness of other OA outcome measures. Key issues were explored using new analyses in two population-based OA cohorts (Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study; MOST and Osteoarthritis Initiative OAI).
Results: OA should be defined by both symptoms and radiographs, with symptoms alone as a secondary definition. Kellgren and Lawrence (K/L) grade ≥2 should be used to define radiographic OA (ROA). The variable wording of pain questions can result in varying prevalence between 41.0% and 75.4%, however questions where the time anchor is similar have high sensitivity and specificity (91.2% and 89.9% respectively). A threshold of 3 on a 0–20 scale (95% CI 2.1, 3.9) in the WOMAC pain subscale demonstrated equivalence with the preferred NHANES-type question.
Conclusion: this research provides recommendations, based on expert agreement, for harmonising and combining OA data in existing and future population-based cohorts.

Text
Leyland Gates 2018 - Osteoarthritis Consensus Article In Press Version - Accepted Manuscript
Download (686kB)
Text
Leyland OA Consensus Manuscript - Submitted Version - Accepted Manuscript
Restricted to Repository staff only
Request a copy

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 30 January 2018
e-pub ahead of print date: 7 February 2018
Published date: July 2018

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 418412
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/418412
ISSN: 1063-4584
PURE UUID: 7619cd6e-e864-4e79-9955-b80675612788
ORCID for L. Gates: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-8627-3418
ORCID for Cyrus Cooper: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-3510-0709

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 07 Mar 2018 17:30
Last modified: 16 Nov 2021 05:03

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: K.M. Leyland
Author: L. Gates ORCID iD
Author: M. Nevitt
Author: D. Felson
Author: S.M. Bierma-Zeinstra
Author: P.G. Conaghan
Author: L. Engebretsen
Author: M. Hochberg
Author: D.J. Hunter
Author: G Jones
Author: J.M. Jordan
Author: A. Judge
Author: L.S. Lohmander
Author: E.M. Roos
Author: M.T. Sanchez-Santos
Author: N. Yoshimura
Author: J.B.J. van Meurs
Author: M.E. Batt
Author: J. Newton
Author: Cyrus Cooper ORCID iD
Author: N.K. Arden

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×