Current methods of clinical assessment in osteoarthritis show a high degree of variability. By contrast, patients with rheumatoid arthritis may be evaluated using a number of standardised and validated indices. One hundred patients with primary osteoarthritis of the hip and knee were interviewed in order to determine the dimensionality of their discomfort and disability and to define the clinical importance of each component item. The symptomatology of osteoarthritis was captured by five pain, one stiffness, twenty-two physical, eight social and eleven emotional items. In spite of a high degree of variability in the frequency of involvement of the individual items, their clinical importance was similar both within as well as across dimensions. Further studies are indicated to determine the reliability, validity and responsiveness of each of the items identified as a prelude to developing a standardized method of assessing patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and knee.

Outcome measures for clinical trials to be valid and reliable should also be responsive to change. There are currently no standardised methods of measuring the outcome in osteoarthritis clinical trials. A review of 63 trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs revealed a large degree of variability in the items, instruments and scales employed. The implications of this variability are discussed and methods proposed for rationalising outcome measurement in this area of clinical research.

No abstract

Osteoarthritis is the most common form of arthritis. The condition is characterised by loss or failure of the functional and/or biochemical integrity of the joint. The clinical symptoms include joint stiffness, pain and dysfunction, but the principal problem for the majority of patients is the pain. Although there are no pain receptors in the cartilage, the origin of the pain is thought to be due to stimulation of the A delta mechanoreceptors and the C polymodal nerve endings in the synovium and surrounding tissues. However, some of the pain experienced in and around the joints is referred pain or sympathetic efferent pain. In addition, there is a poor correlation of clinical symptoms with radiological or imaging appearance. This lack of correlation of clinical evaluation and imaging makes attempts at treatment difficult and compromises attempts to design studies and to evaluate the outcome of osteoarthritis in clinical trials.

(1544) and control (1528) subjects and for subjects with RA occurred within the 95% confidence interval of least pain and stiffness. These data suggest that the inferior performance of subjects with RA may be an accentuation of the normal physiological variation seen in healthy controls, but may be modulated by the patient's level of pain or stiffness, or both.

No abstract

Twenty‐three patients with rheumatoid arthritis on orthodox first‐line anti‐inflammatory treatment plus homeopathy were compared wtih a similar group of twenty‐three patients on orthodox first‐line treatment plus an inert preparation. There was a significant improvement in subjective pain, articular index, stiffness and grip strength in those patients receiving homoeopathic remedies whereas there was no significant change in the patients who received placebo. Two physicians were involved in prescribing for the patients and there were no significant differences in the results which they obtained. No side effects were observed with the homoeopathic remedies.

To study the effect of thermal mineral water of Nagybaracska (Hungary) on patients with primary knee osteoarthritis in a randomized, double-blind clinical trial, 64 patients with nonsurgical knee joint osteoarthritis were randomly selected either into the thermal mineral water or into the tap water group in a non-spa resort village. The patients of both groups received 30-min sessions of bathing, 5 days a week for four consecutive weeks. The patients were evaluated by a blind observer immediately before and at the end of the trial using Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) indices and follow-up assessment 3 months later. Twenty-seven patients of the 32 patients who received thermal mineral water and 25 of the 32 of those treated with tap water completed the trial. The WOMAC activity, pain, and total scores improved significantly in the thermal mineral-water-treated group. The improvement remained also at the end of the 3-month follow-up. The WOMAC activity, pain, and total scores improved significantly also in the tap water group at the end of the treatment course, but no improvement was detected at the end of the 3-month follow-up period. The treatment with the thermal mineral water of Nagybaracska significantly improved activity, pain, and total WOMAC scores of patients with nonsurgical OA of the knee. Even after 3 months, significant improvement was observed compared to the scores before the treatment or to tap water treatment.