Skip to main content
PMC home page
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases logoLink to Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
. 2001 Sep;60(9):834–840.

Responsiveness of the WOMAC osteoarthritis index as compared with the SF-36 in patients with osteoarthritis of the legs undergoing a comprehensive rehabilitation intervention

F Angst 1, A Aeschlimann 1, W Steiner 1, G Stucki 1
PMCID: PMC1753825  PMID: 11502609

Abstract

OBJECTIVE—To compare the responsiveness of the condition-specific Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis (OA) index (WOMAC) and the generic Short Form-36 (SF-36) in patients with OA of the legs undergoing a comprehensive inpatient rehabilitation intervention.
METHODS—A prospective follow up study of consecutively referred inpatients of a rehabilitation clinic was made. The patients included fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology criteria for knee or hip OA and underwent both passive and, particularly, active physical therapy for three to four weeks. Responsiveness assessment was performed using the standardised response mean (SRM), effect size, and Guyatt's responsiveness statistic between admission and discharge (end of rehabilitation) and then again between admission and three months later. For pain and function the SRMs were stratified by sex and OA joint. Effects were tested by the t test and SRMs of different scales were compared by the jack knife test.
RESULTS—At the three month follow up, complete data were obtained for 223 patients. In general, the three responsiveness statistics showed a similar order of responsiveness. For both instruments, the pain scales were more responsive than the function scales. The responsiveness of the pain scale of both instruments was comparable (SRM=0.723 for WOMAC and SRM=0.528 for SF-36 at the end of rehabilitation; SRM=0.377 for WOMAC and SRM=0.468 for SF-36 at the three month follow up). In the measurement of function, the WOMAC was significantly more responsive than the SF-36 (SRMs, end of rehabilitation: 0.628 v 0.249; three month follow up: 0.235 v −0.001). Responsiveness tended to be higher in women and in knee OA than in men and hip OA.
CONCLUSIONS—Both instruments, the WOMAC and the SF-36, capture improvement in pain in patients undergoing comprehensive inpatient rehabilitation intervention. Functional improvement can be detected better by the WOMAC than by the SF-36. All the other scales of both instruments were more weakly responsive.



Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (118.4 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Altman R., Alarcón G., Appelrouth D., Bloch D., Borenstein D., Brandt K., Brown C., Cooke T. D., Daniel W., Feldman D. The American College of Rheumatology criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis of the hip. Arthritis Rheum. 1991 May;34(5):505–514. doi: 10.1002/art.1780340502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barr S., Bellamy N., Buchanan W. W., Chalmers A., Ford P. M., Kean W. F., Kraag G. R., Gerecz-Simon E., Campbell J. A comparative study of signal versus aggregate methods of outcome measurement based on the WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. J Rheumatol. 1994 Nov;21(11):2106–2112. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bellamy N., Buchanan W. W. A preliminary evaluation of the dimensionality and clinical importance of pain and disability in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. Clin Rheumatol. 1986 Jun;5(2):231–241. doi: 10.1007/BF02032362. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bellamy N., Buchanan W. W., Goldsmith C. H., Campbell J., Duku E. Signal measurement strategies: are they feasible and do they offer any advantage in outcome measurement in osteoarthritis? Arthritis Rheum. 1990 May;33(5):739–745. doi: 10.1002/art.1780330518. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bellamy N., Buchanan W. W., Goldsmith C. H., Campbell J., Stitt L. W. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988 Dec;15(12):1833–1840. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bellamy N., Kean W. F., Buchanan W. W., Gerecz-Simon E., Campbell J. Double blind randomized controlled trial of sodium meclofenamate (Meclomen) and diclofenac sodium (Voltaren): post validation reapplication of the WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index. J Rheumatol. 1992 Jan;19(1):153–159. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bellamy N., Kirwan J., Boers M., Brooks P., Strand V., Tugwell P., Altman R., Brandt K., Dougados M., Lequesne M. Recommendations for a core set of outcome measures for future phase III clinical trials in knee, hip, and hand osteoarthritis. Consensus development at OMERACT III. J Rheumatol. 1997 Apr;24(4):799–802. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bellamy N. Outcome measurement in osteoarthritis clinical trials. J Rheumatol Suppl. 1995 Feb;43:49–51. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bellamy N. Pain assessment in osteoarthritis: experience with the WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1989 May;18(4 Suppl 2):14–17. doi: 10.1016/0049-0172(89)90010-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bessette L., Sangha O., Kuntz K. M., Keller R. B., Lew R. A., Fossel A. H., Katz J. N. Comparative responsiveness of generic versus disease-specific and weighted versus unweighted health status measures in carpal tunnel syndrome. Med Care. 1998 Apr;36(4):491–502. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199804000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Boers M., Brooks P., Strand C. V., Tugwell P. The OMERACT filter for Outcome Measures in Rheumatology. J Rheumatol. 1998 Feb;25(2):198–199. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Brazier J. E., Harper R., Munro J., Walters S. J., Snaith M. L. Generic and condition-specific outcome measures for people with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology (Oxford) 1999 Sep;38(9):870–877. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/38.9.870. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Dieppe P. Therapeutic targets in osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol Suppl. 1995 Feb;43:136–139. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Guyatt G., Walter S., Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(2):171–178. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90069-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hawker G., Melfi C., Paul J., Green R., Bombardier C. Comparison of a generic (SF-36) and a disease specific (WOMAC) (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) instrument in the measurement of outcomes after knee replacement surgery. J Rheumatol. 1995 Jun;22(6):1193–1196. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Kantz M. E., Harris W. J., Levitsky K., Ware J. E., Jr, Davies A. R. Methods for assessing condition-specific and generic functional status outcomes after total knee replacement. Med Care. 1992 May;30(5 Suppl):MS240–MS252. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199205001-00024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Katz J. N., Larson M. G., Phillips C. B., Fossel A. H., Liang M. H. Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer health status instruments. Med Care. 1992 Oct;30(10):917–925. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199210000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Kazis L. E., Anderson J. J., Meenan R. F. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989 Mar;27(3 Suppl):S178–S189. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198903001-00015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Laupacis A., Bourne R., Rorabeck C., Feeny D., Wong C., Tugwell P., Leslie K., Bullas R. The effect of elective total hip replacement on health-related quality of life. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993 Nov;75(11):1619–1626. doi: 10.2106/00004623-199311000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Lequesne M., Brandt K., Bellamy N., Moskowitz R., Menkes C. J., Pelletier J. P., Altman R. Guidelines for testing slow acting drugs in osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol Suppl. 1994 Sep;41:65–73. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Liang M. H., Fossel A. H., Larson M. G. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care. 1990 Jul;28(7):632–642. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199007000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Liang M. H., Larson M. G., Cullen K. E., Schwartz J. A. Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. Arthritis Rheum. 1985 May;28(5):542–547. doi: 10.1002/art.1780280513. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Roos E. M., Roos H. P., Lohmander L. S., Ekdahl C., Beynnon B. D. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)--development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998 Aug;28(2):88–96. doi: 10.2519/jospt.1998.28.2.88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Ruof J., Sangha O., Stucki G. Comparative responsiveness of 3 functional indices in ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol. 1999 Sep;26(9):1959–1963. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Stucki G., Liang M. H., Fossel A. H., Katz J. N. Relative responsiveness of condition-specific and generic health status measures in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995 Nov;48(11):1369–1378. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(95)00054-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Stucki G., Liang M. H., Phillips C., Katz J. N. The Short Form-36 is preferable to the SIP as a generic health status measure in patients undergoing elective total hip arthroplasty. Arthritis Care Res. 1995 Sep;8(3):174–181. doi: 10.1002/art.1790080310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Stucki G., Meier D., Stucki S., Michel B. A., Tyndall A. G., Dick W., Theiler R. Evaluation einer deutschen Version des WOMAC (Western Ontario und McMaster Universities) Arthroseindex. Z Rheumatol. 1996 Jan-Feb;55(1):40–49. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Theiler R., Ghosh P., Brooks P. Clinical, biochemical and imaging methods of assessing osteoarthritis and clinical trials with agents claiming 'chondromodulating' activity. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 1994 Mar;2(1):1–23. doi: 10.1016/s1063-4584(05)80002-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Ware J. E., Jr, Gandek B. Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Nov;51(11):903–912. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00081-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Wright J. G., Young N. L. A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 Mar;50(3):239–246. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00373-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES