Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

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

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 1, 12 - 15, 30.04.2021

Öz

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.

Destekleyen Kurum

-

Proje Numarası

-

Teşekkür

Çalışmaya katılımlarından dolayı diz OA hastalarımıza teşekkür ederiz.

Kaynakça

  • 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.

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

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 1, 12 - 15, 30.04.2021

Öz

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.

Proje Numarası

-

Kaynakça

  • 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.
Toplam 22 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Sağlık Kurumları Yönetimi
Bölüm Araştırma Makaleleri
Yazarlar

Yasemin Akkubak 0000-0002-4367-2355

Bahar Anaforoğlu Külünkoğlu 0000-0002-2148-0379

Proje Numarası -
Yayımlanma Tarihi 30 Nisan 2021
Gönderilme Tarihi 25 Şubat 2021
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2021 Cilt: 2 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

Vancouver Akkubak Y, Anaforoğlu Külünkoğlu B. KAS-İSKELET SİSTEMİ SAĞLIK SORGULAMASI İLE WESTERN ONTARİO VE MCMASTER ÜNİVERSİTELERİ OSTEOARTRİT İNDEKSİ VE KISA FORM-36 YAŞAM KALİTESİ ÖLÇEKLERİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI. Karya J Health Sci. 2021;2(1):12-5.