Measures of Hand Function

Clinical aspects and outcomes in osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most prevalent type of arthritis worldwide, and its incidence significantly increases with age. It commonly affects the knees, hips, spine, big toes, and hands. OA can be identified through clinical examination, symptoms, and imaging methods. Its main symptoms include pain, stiffness, and limitations in joint movement. Examinations may reveal coarse crepitus, bony enlargement, and tenderness at the joint line. In severe cases of OA, rest pain, night pain, and deformity may occur. OA can lead to decreased physical activity, function, and quality of life due to symptoms such as pain and stiffness. To evaluate these impacts, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are necessary. Various generic, disease-specific, and joint-specific PROMs have been developed and used in clinical practice to assess the outcomes of OA.

Fundamentals of osteoarthritis: outcome evaluation with patient-reported measures and functional tests

Evaluating outcome in osteoarthritis (OA) clinical research and practice requires reliable, valid and responsive patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and functional tests that reflect important problems experienced by people with OA. The goal of this work is to provide information to start to guide the reader in selecting measures for people with OA. In this narrative review, we begin by providing an overview of measurement properties that can help clinicians and researchers in making decisions about whether a measure might be appropriate for use in their research or clinical context. We then report evidence supporting the use of measures of pain (e.g., Pain Visual Analogue (VAS), Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain, PROMIS Pain Interference, and, for screening in research, the painDETECT and the Self-report Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs) and fatigue (e.g., PROMIS-Fatigue) at a group level in clinical research. Several multi-dimensional joint-specific measures (e.g., Western Ontario McMaster Universities' Osteoarthritis Outcomes Scale, Knee/Hip Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Oxford Hip/Knee Scale) also have evidence for group-level use. Functional tests (e.g., timed walk tests, 30 Second Chair Stand, Timed Up and Go, etc.) have measurement properties supporting their use at the group level in clinical research and at the individual patient level as do the pain VAS and NPRS. Other generic and disease-specific PROMs have been used in or could be used in OA studies but their measurement properties require further evaluation in people with OA.

Core outcome measurement instrument selection for physical function in hand osteoarthritis using the OMERACT Filter 2.1 process

OBJECTIVE

Physical function is one of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core outcome domains for hand osteoarthritis studies. Our aim was to select appropriate instrument(s) to measure this domain, as part of the development of a core outcome measurement set.

METHODS

Following the OMERACT Filter 2.1 instrument selection process, the (function subscale of) the Australian/Canadian Hand Osteoarthritis Index (AUSCAN), Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis (FIHOA) and Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) were assessed for domain match, feasibility, truth and discrimination. Data gathered from available literature, working group and patient surveys, and additional analyses in two hand osteoarthritis cohorts were used to inform a consensus process. Results were summarized in Summary of Measurements Properties tables and reviewed by the OMERACT technical advisory group.

RESULTS

MHQ passed the assessment of domain match and feasibility by the working group and patient research partners. For AUSCAN important limitations in feasibility were noted, but domain match was good. FIHOA did not pass the assessment and was not taken through the follow-up assessment. Based on published literature, reliability and construct/longitudinal validity of both MHQ and AUSCAN fulfilled OMERACT standards. While clinical trial discrimination and thresholds of meaning were good for AUSCAN, results for MHQ were ambiguous.

CONCLUSION

MHQ was provisionally endorsed as OMERACT core outcome measure for the core domain physical function. While AUSCAN may have better metric properties than MHQ, it received provisional endorsement as a second measure of function due to important feasibility issues. A research agenda to merit full endorsement was set.