Advanced

EULAR evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis of hand osteoarthritis: report of a task force of ESCISIT

Zhang, W.; Doherty, M.; Leeb, B. F.; Alekseeva, L.; Arden, N. K.; Bijlsma, J. W.; Dincer, F.; Dziedzic, K.; Hauselmann, H. J. and Kaklamanis, P., et al. (2009) In Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 68(1). p.8-17
Abstract
Objectives: To develop evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis of hand osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: The multidisciplinary guideline development group, representing 15 European countries, generated 10 key propositions regarding diagnosis using a Delphi consensus approach. For each recommendation, research evidence was searched for systematically. Whenever possible, the sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratio (LR) were calculated; relative risk and odds ratios were estimated for risk factors for hand OA. Quality of evidence was categorised using the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) hierarchy, and strength of recommendation was assessed by the EULAR visual analogue scale. Results: Diagnostic topics included clinical... (More)
Objectives: To develop evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis of hand osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: The multidisciplinary guideline development group, representing 15 European countries, generated 10 key propositions regarding diagnosis using a Delphi consensus approach. For each recommendation, research evidence was searched for systematically. Whenever possible, the sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratio (LR) were calculated; relative risk and odds ratios were estimated for risk factors for hand OA. Quality of evidence was categorised using the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) hierarchy, and strength of recommendation was assessed by the EULAR visual analogue scale. Results: Diagnostic topics included clinical manifestations, radiographic features, subgroups, differential diagnosis, laboratory tests, risk factors and comorbidities. The sensitivity, specificity and LR varied between tests depending upon the cut-off level, gold standard and controls. Overall, no single test could be used to define hand OA on its own (LR,10) but a composite of the tests greatly increased the chance of the diagnosis. The probability of a subject having hand OA was 20% when Heberden nodes alone were present, but this increased to 88% when in addition the subject was over 40 years old, had a family history of nodes and had joint space narrowing in any finger joint. Conclusion: Ten key recommendations for diagnosis of hand OA were developed using research evidence and expert consensus. Diagnosis of hand OA should be based on assessment of a composite of features. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
, et al. (More)
(Less)
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
volume
68
issue
1
pages
8 - 17
publisher
British Medical Association
external identifiers
  • wos:000261755800003
  • scopus:58349116429
ISSN
1468-2060
DOI
10.1136/ard.2007.084772
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
5e6d6253-74ec-46c8-8477-23c749a4ff86 (old id 4350880)
date added to LUP
2014-03-05 14:44:33
date last changed
2017-12-10 03:56:43
@article{5e6d6253-74ec-46c8-8477-23c749a4ff86,
  abstract     = {Objectives: To develop evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis of hand osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: The multidisciplinary guideline development group, representing 15 European countries, generated 10 key propositions regarding diagnosis using a Delphi consensus approach. For each recommendation, research evidence was searched for systematically. Whenever possible, the sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratio (LR) were calculated; relative risk and odds ratios were estimated for risk factors for hand OA. Quality of evidence was categorised using the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) hierarchy, and strength of recommendation was assessed by the EULAR visual analogue scale. Results: Diagnostic topics included clinical manifestations, radiographic features, subgroups, differential diagnosis, laboratory tests, risk factors and comorbidities. The sensitivity, specificity and LR varied between tests depending upon the cut-off level, gold standard and controls. Overall, no single test could be used to define hand OA on its own (LR,10) but a composite of the tests greatly increased the chance of the diagnosis. The probability of a subject having hand OA was 20% when Heberden nodes alone were present, but this increased to 88% when in addition the subject was over 40 years old, had a family history of nodes and had joint space narrowing in any finger joint. Conclusion: Ten key recommendations for diagnosis of hand OA were developed using research evidence and expert consensus. Diagnosis of hand OA should be based on assessment of a composite of features.},
  author       = {Zhang, W. and Doherty, M. and Leeb, B. F. and Alekseeva, L. and Arden, N. K. and Bijlsma, J. W. and Dincer, F. and Dziedzic, K. and Hauselmann, H. J. and Kaklamanis, P. and Kloppenburg, M. and Lohmander, Stefan and Maheu, E. and Martin-Mola, E. and Pavelka, K. and Punzi, L. and Reiter, S. and Smolen, J. and Verbruggen, G. and Watt, I. and Zimmermann-Gorska, I.},
  issn         = {1468-2060},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {1},
  pages        = {8--17},
  publisher    = {British Medical Association},
  series       = {Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases},
  title        = {EULAR evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis of hand osteoarthritis: report of a task force of ESCISIT},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ard.2007.084772},
  volume       = {68},
  year         = {2009},
}