No abstract

Proprioception plays an important role in the complex mechanism of joint control. Proprioceptive training is popularly applied as preventive or rehabilitative exercise method in various sports and rehabilitation settings. The primary purpose of this narrative review is to evaluate the current literature and to provide further insight about proprioception. The objective is to answer few important questions: • What are the factors affecting it? • How to evaluate proprioception? • What are the tools and technique required for the assessment? • How to train, improve, and progress in proprioceptive training? This evidence based study helps to guide rehabilitation professionals in selecting appropriate, effective strategies when managing issues related to position sense. Postural balance and its sensory motor correlates in 75-year-old men and women: A cross-national comparative study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 51(2): M53-M63. 6. Barrack RL, Skinner HB, Cook SD, Haddad RJ (1983) Effect of articular disease and total knee arthroplasty on knee joint position sense. J Neurophysiol 50(3): 684-687. 7. Hassan BS, Mockett S, Doherty M (2001) Static postural sway, proprioception, and maximal voluntary quadriceps contraction in patients with knee osteoarthritis and normal control subjects. Ann

Background: Cross cultural validity is of vital importance for international comparisons. Objective: To investigate the validity of international Dutch-English comparisons when using the Dutch translation of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC). Patients and Methods: The dimensionality, reliability, construct validity, and cross cultural equivalence of the Dutch WOMAC in Dutch and Canadian patients waiting for primary total hip arthroplasty was investigated. Unidimensionality and cross cultural equivalence was quantified by principal component and Rasch analysis. Intratest reliability was quantified with Cronbach's a, and test-retest reliability with the intraclass correlation coefficient. Construct validity was quantified by correlating sum scores of the Dutch WOMAC, Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales (Dutch AIMS2), Health Assessment Questionnaire (Dutch HAQ), and Harris Hip Score (Dutch HHS). Results: The WOMAC was completed by 180 Dutch and 244 English speaking Canadian patients. Unidimensionality of the Dutch WOMAC was confirmed by principal component and Rasch analysis (good fit for 20/22 items). The intratest reliability of the Dutch WOMAC for pain and physical functioning was 0.88 and 0.96, whereas the test-retest reliability was 0.77 and 0.92, respectively. Dutch WOMAC pain sum score correlated 0.69 with Dutch HAQ pain, and 0.39 with Dutch HHS pain. Dutch WOMAC physical functioning sum score correlated 0.46 with Dutch AIMS2 mobility, 0.62 with Dutch AIMS2 walking and bending, 0.67 with Dutch HAQ disability, and 0.49 with Dutch HHS function. Differential item functioning (DIF) was shown for 6/22 Dutch items. Conclusions: The Dutch WOMAC permits valid international Dutch-English comparisons after correction for DIF.

No abstract

The methodology used and experience gained in this study can be used as an example for researchers in other countries interested in translating PROMIS. The Dutch-Flemish PROMIS items are linguistically equivalent. Short forms will soon be available for use and entire item banks are ready for cross-cultural validation in the Netherlands and Flanders.

Objective. To identify subgroups or phenotypes of knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients based on similarities of clinically relevant patient characteristics, and to compare clinical outcomes of these phenotypes. Methods. Data from 842 knee OA patients of the Osteoarthritis Initiative were used. A cluster analysis method was performed, in which clusters were formed based on similarities in 4 clinically relevant, easily available variables: severity of radiographic OA, lower extremity muscle strength, body mass index, and depression. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were used to compare phenotypes on clinical outcomes (pain and activity limitations), taking into account possible confounders. Results. Five phenotypes of knee OA patients were identified: "minimal joint disease phenotype," "strong muscle phenotype," "nonobese and weak muscle phenotype," "obese and weak muscle phenotype," and "depressive phenotype." The "depressive phenotype" and "obese and weak muscle phenotype" showed higher pain levels and more severe activity limitations than the other 3 phenotypes. Conclusion. Five phenotypes based on clinically relevant patient characteristics can be identified in the heterogeneous population of knee OA patients. These phenotypes showed different clinical outcomes. Interventions may need to be tailored to these clinical phenotypes.

For application in clinical research and practice, MIC values are always considered at the individual level, but determined in groups of patients. The interpretation comes with different forms of uncertainty. To appreciate the uncertainty, knowledge of the underlying distributions of change scores is indispensable.

Objective To describe the osteoarthritis study population of CHECK (Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee) in comparison with relevant selections of the study population of the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) based on clinical status and radiographic parameters. Methods In The Netherlands a prospective 10-year follow-up study was initiated by the Dutch Arthritis Association on participants with early osteoarthritis-related complaints of hip and/or knee: CHECK. In parallel in the USA an observational 4-year follow-up study, the OAI, was started by the National Institutes of Health, on patients with or at risk of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. For comparison with CHECK, the entire cohort and a subgroup of individuals excluding those with exclusively hip pain were compared with relevant subpopulations of the OAI. Results At baseline, CHECK included 1002 participants with in general similar characteristics as described for the OAI. However, significantly fewer individuals in CHECK had radiographic knee osteoarthritis at baseline when compared with the OAI (p<0.001). In contrast, at baseline, the CHECK cohort reported higher scores on pain, stiffness and functional disability (Western Ontario and McMaster osteoarthritis index) when compared with the OAI (all p<0.001). These differences were supported by physical health status in contrast to mental health (Short Form 36/12) was at baseline significantly worse for the CHECK participants (p<0.001). Conclusion Although both cohorts focus on the early phase of osteoarthritis, they differ significantly with respect to structural (radiographic) and clinical (health status) characteristics, CHECK expectedly representing participants in an even earlier phase of disease.