Responsiveness of the ABILHAND questionnaire in measuring changes in rheumatoid arthritis patients

Abstract

Objective. ABILHAND is a Rasch-built questionnaire that measures manual ability in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. This study aimed to examine the test-retest reliability and the responsiveness of ABILHAND in RA patients. Methods. Eighty-eight patients underwent 3 evaluations: the first evaluation was at baseline (time 1), the second was 2 weeks later (time 2), and the third was 1 year later (time 3). Disease activity was assessed using the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP). Patients rated the intensity of their RA-related pain using a 100-mm visual analog scale for pain and completed questionnaires based on their activity limitations (ABILHAND and the Health Assessment Questionnaire) and quality of life. Results. The responsiveness analyses were conducted by using global, group, and individual approaches. The global approach showed significant differences between the time 1 and time 3 scores of the DAS28-CRP (P ‫؍‬ 0.04) and ABILHAND (P ‫؍‬ 0.04). Based on the changes in disease activity scores and the European League Against Rheumatism response criteria, the sample was divided into 3 groups: deteriorated, stable, and improved. The mean ؎ SD changes in manual ability were higher in the deteriorated (؊1.23 ؎ 1.53 logit) and in the improved (1.22 ؎ 2.06 logits) groups than in the stable group (0.48 ؎ 1.09 logit). The effect size and standardized response mean confirmed that observation. The minimal clinically important difference was assessed in each group of patients. Conclusion. The ABILHAND questionnaire exhibited responsiveness in detecting slight changes in RA patients. Therefore, the ABILHAND tool can be used to evaluate the functional status of RA patients in clinical trials and settings.

Test‐Retest Reliability of the ABILHAND Questionnaire in Persons With Chronic Stroke

“…Our findings of high ICCs (ICC 2,1 ¼ 0.85-0.91) are in agreement with previous studies in persons with rheumatoid arthritis (ICC ¼ 0.74-0.86) [23,24] and systemic sclerosis (ICC ¼ 0.96) [19]. ICC is one of the most commonly used methods to evaluate reliability, but it is insufficient to fully assess the reliability of measurements [31].…”

“…Other studies that have used the ABILHAND Questionnaire as an outcome measure have reported similar or greater changes in scores. Liao et al [26] and Wang et al [37] found mean changes of 0.25‐0.88 logits after robotic training in persons with stroke, and Batcho et al [24] reported a mean change of 0.48 logits in a stable group of persons with rheumatoid arthritis during a period of 1 year.…”

Assessment of Clinically Meaningful Improvements in Self-Reported Walking Ability in Participants with Multiple Sclerosis: Results from the Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III ENHANCE Trial of Prolonged-Release Fampridine

“…Each task is scored from 0 (unable to perform) to 4 (able to perform independently). A higher BBS score represents better balance; recommended to predict multiple falls once a fall has occurred [ 20 , 21 , 43 – 46 ] Screening, day 1 (before randomization), at weeks 2, 12, and 24 (end of treatment) ABILHAND 56 e 0–100 TBC for individuals with MS. 0.47–1.89 logits in patients with rheumatoid arthritis [ 47 ], and 0.26–0.35 logits in patients with stroke [ 48 ] Self-reported measure of manual ability to manage daily activities among chronic stroke patients. Participants estimate the ease or difficulty of performing each upper limb activity using a 3-level response scale: impossible (0), difficult (1), and easy (2).…”

Brisk walking can promote functional recovery in chronic stroke patients

“…Activities such as getting out of a car, taking a shower, putting on socks, walking upstairs, sweeping or vacuuming, or walking more than 1 km were rated as easy or difficult, while before training they were impossible or difficult. We conducted a second analysis using an individual-based approach (27,28). this approach accounts for standard errors (SEs) of the measurement associated with each patient's measures and mean change between time 2 and time 3 evaluations.…”