KAS-İSKELET SİSTEMİ SAĞLIK SORGULAMASI İLE WESTERN ONTARİO VE MCMASTER ÜNİVERSİTELERİ OSTEOARTRİT İNDEKSİ VE KISA FORM-36 YAŞAM KALİTESİ ÖLÇEKLERİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

Year 2021, Volume: 2 Issue: 1, 12 - 15, 30.04.2021

Yasemin Akkubak , Bahar Anaforoğlu Külünkoğlu

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, diz osteoartrit (OA) hastalarında Kas-İskelet Sistemi Sağlık Sorgulaması (KİS-SS), Western Ontario ve McMaster Üniversiteleri OA İndeksi (WOMAC) ve Kısa Form-36 (SF-36) ölçekleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesidir.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışma; 40-65 yaş aralığında 100 diz OA hastası (78 kadın, 22 erkek; yaş ortalaması 60.45±6.86) ile gerçekleştirildi. Hastalar sırasıyla KİS-SS, WOMAC ve SF-36 ölçeklerini doldurdu. Ölçeklerin birbirleriyle olan korelasyonu için Pearson korelasyon katsayısı kullanıldı.
Bulgular: KİS-SS ile WOMAC arasındaki korelasyon analizine bakıldığında; aralarında yüksek kuvvetli ve negatif yönde bir korelasyon olduğu belirlendi (p<0.001, r=-0.892). KİS-SS ile SF-36 ağrı, fiziksel fonksiyon (FF) ve sosyal fonksiyon (SF) alt grupları arasındaki korelasyon analizleri incelendiğinde; aralarında orta kuvvette ve pozitif yönde bir korelasyon olduğu belirlendi (p<0.001, r=0.434; r=0.536; r=0.639 sırasıyla).
Sonuç: KİS-SS, WOMAC ve SF-36 ağrı, SF ve FF alt parametreleriyle iyi bir korelasyon göstermiştir. KİS-SS; diz OA hastalarında tek sonuç ölçümü olarak kullanılabilir. Bu akademik ve klinik çalışmalarda uygulayıcıya kolaylık ve zaman tasarrufu sağlayacaktır.

Keywords

Osteoartrit, Anket, Ağrı, Fonksiyon

Supporting Institution

-

Project Number

-

Thanks

Çalışmaya katılımlarından dolayı diz OA hastalarımıza teşekkür ederiz.

A COMPARISON OF MUSCULOSKELETAL HEALTH QUESTIONNAIRE WITH WESTERN ONTARIO AND MCMASTER UNIVERSITIES OSTEOARTHRITIS INDEX, AND SHORT FORM- 36 HEALTH SURVEY

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the correlation of Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ) with Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Short form-36 (SF-36) scales in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA).
Materials and Methods: The study was conducted with 100 knee OA patients (78 women, 22 men; age mean 60.45±6.86) between the ages of 40-65. Patients completed the MSK-HQ, WOMAC and SF-36 scales, respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to the correlation between questionnaires.
Results: It was seen that the correlation of MSK-HQ with WOMAC was a strong and negative relationship (p<0.001, r=-0.892). When the correlation analyses between MSK-HQ and SF-36 subgroups of pain, social function (SF), and physical function (FF) are examined; it was determined that there is a positive and modarate strong relationship between them (p<0.001, r=0.434; r=0.536; r=0.639, respectively).
Conclusion: MSK-HQ demonstrated good correlation with WOMAC and SF-36 pain, SF and FF. MSK-HQ can be used as the sole outcome measure in patients with knee OA. This will provide convenience and time savings to the practitioner in academic and clinical studies.

Keywords

Osteoarthritis, Questionnaire, Pain, Function

Project Number

-

References

• 1. Lozano R, Naghavi M, Foreman K, et al. Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2013; 380(9859): 2095-2128.
• 2. March L, Smith EU, Hoy DG, et al. Burden of disability due to musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2014; 28(3): 353-366.
• 3. Kamaleri Y, Natvig B, Ihlebaek CM, et al. Localized or widespread musculoskeletal pain: does it matter? Pain. 2008; 138(1): 41-46.
• 4. Hill JC, Kang S, Benedetto E, et al. Development and initial cohort validation of the Arthritis Research UK Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ) for use across musculoskeletal care pathways. BMJ open. 2016; 6(8): e012331.
• 5. Cross M, Smith E, Hoy D, et al. The global burden of hip and knee osteoarthritis: estimates from the global burden of disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014; 73: 1323-1330.
• 6. Küçükdeveci AA. Osteoartiritte işlevsel değerlendirme ölçütleri. Türk Geriatri Dergisi. 2011; 14(1): 37-44.
• 7. Black N. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ. 2013; 346: f167.
• 8. Fitzgerald G, Hinman R, Zeni Jr J, et al. OARSI clinical trials recommendations: design and conduct of clinical trials of rehabilitation interventions for osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2015; 23(5): 803-814.
• 9. Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, et al. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)-development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998; 28(2): 88-96.
• 10. Akkubak Y, Külünkoğlu BA. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of Arthritis Research UK Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire. Arch Rheumatol. 2020; 35(2): 155-162.
• 11. McConnell S, Kolopack P, Davis AM. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC): a review of its utility and measurement properties. Arthritis Care Res. 2001; 45(5): 453-461.
• 12. Tüzün E, Eker L, Aytar A, et al. Acceptability, reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Turkish version of WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2005; 13(1): 28-33.
• 13. Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones N, et al. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ. 1992; 305: 160-164.
• 14. Koçyiğit H, Aydemir Ö, Fişek G, et al. The validity and reliability of Turkish version of the Short Form 36 (SF-36). Turkish J Drugs Therap. 1999; 12: 102-106.
• 15. Feise RJ, Michael MJ. Functional rating index: a new valid and reliable instrument to measure the magnitude of clinical change in spinal conditions. Spine (Phila, Pa 1976). 2001; 26: 78-86.
• 16. Kyte DG, Calvert M, van der Wees P, et al. An introduction to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in physiotherapy. Physiotherapy. 2015; 101(2): 119-125.
• 17. Fennelly O, Blake C, Desmeules F, et al. Patient reported outcome measures in advanced musculoskeletal physiotherapy practice: a systematic review. Musculoskeletal Care. 2017; 14(3): 1-21.
• 18. Erdinç O, Hot K, Özkaya M. Turkish version of the Cornell Musculoskeletal Discomfort Questionnaire: cross-cultural adaptation and validation. Work. 2011; 39(3): 251-260.
• 19. Kahraman T, Genç A, Göz E. The Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire: cross-cultural adaptation into Turkish assessing its psychometric properties. Disabil rehabil. 2016; 38(21): 2153-2160.
• 20. Etiler N. Çalışan kadınlar ile ev kadınlarının sağlık durumu üzerine bir analiz. Mesleki Sağlık ve Güvenlik Dergisi. 2016; 15(57): 37-47.
• 21. Bihari V, Kesavachandran CN, Mathur N, et al. Mathematically derived body volume and risk of musculoskeletal pain among housewives in North India. PloS one. 2013; 8(11): e80133.
• 22. Duncan R, Peat G, Thomas E, et al. How do pain and function vary with compartmental distribution and severity of radiographic knee osteoarthritis?. Rheumatology. 2008; 47(11): 1704-1707.