Rheumatoid Arthritis: Croft JD

Badamgarav E, Croft JD, Hohlbauch A, Louie JS, O'Dell J, Ofman JJ, Suarez-Almazor ME, Weaver A, White P, Katz P, Anonymous00232. · Zynx Health Incorporated, Los Angeles, California, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #12794794 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of the published literature on disease management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to use meta-analysis to estimate the magnitude of benefit these programs have on functional status in patients with RA. METHODS: Computerized databases for English articles from 1966 to September 2001 were searched. Two reviewers evaluated 1,029 published titles, identified 11 studies meeting explicit inclusion criteria, and extracted data about study characteristics, interventions used, and outcomes measured. Pooled effect sizes for functional status were calculated using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Four out of 8 disease management programs showed significant improvements in functional status; however, the pooled effect size (ES) was small and statistically non-significant (ES 0.27; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] -0.01, 0.54). Studies with longer intervention durations (>5 weeks) had significantly improved patient functional status (ES 0.49; 95% CI 0.12, 0.86), compared with studies with shorter intervention durations (</=5 weeks, ES 0.13; 95% CI -0.25, 0.52). CONCLUSIONS: There were limited data to support or refute the effectiveness of disease management programs in improving functional status in patients with RA. Additional studies are needed to confirm if a more intensive intervention may be of benefit to patients with RA, as suggested by our study.

Weisman MH, Gano AD, Gabriel SE, Hochberg MC, Kavanaugh A, Ofman JJ, Prashker M, Suarez-Almazor ME, Yelin E, Nakelsky SD, Croft JD, Anonymous00394. · Evidence-Based Medicine Working Groups in Rheumatology, Beverly Hills, CA, USA. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #12913929 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the relative attributes (reliability, ease of use, applicability, and relevance) of different assessment tools for economic analyses as they pertain to rheumatoid arthritis (RA) literature. METHODS: An expert panel, comprising rheumatology researchers and clinicians, operationalized 2 economic appraisal instruments and applied them to 11 articles used for analysis. Each expert reviewed 3 articles, with each article independently reviewed by a pair of experts. A summary score for each article per appraisal instrument was calculated by dividing the number of items that received a "positive" response by the total number of items in the appraisal instrument. RESULTS: Scores for each article were similar across reviewers and appraisal instruments. CONCLUSION: There is a need for a more comprehensive approach for evaluating this rapidly growing body of economic literature that is not only valid and reliable, but also easy to apply and understand. Although consistency between reviewers was good on both guidelines, inter-guideline discrepancies were noted and reviewers reported some difficulty in using the operationalized format.

Russak SM, Croft JD, Furst DE, Hohlbauch A, Liang MH, Moreland L, Ofman JJ, Paulus H, Simon LS, Weisman M, Tugwell P, Anonymous00333. · Zynx Health Incorporated, Beverly Hills, California, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #12910566 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: The utilization of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) patient questionnaires by clinical rheumatologists is limited. Yet, considerable literature exists defining the value of such data. In an effort to understand this apparent paradox, we performed a literature review and conducted a survey to describe what has been learned over the past 2 decades concerning the use of these measures in clinical care and explore the reasons for their underutilization. METHODS: A panel of rheumatologists with extensive clinical experience was convened to review the relevant literature pertaining to the use of HRQOL patient instruments in clinical practice. Additionally, a survey of all American College of Rheumatology practicing clinicians was conducted to assess the use of and beliefs about these measures. RESULTS: The literature provided evidence to support the use of HRQOL patient measures in clinical practice. Forty-seven percent of the responding rheumatologists stated that none of their patients complete HRQOL patient questionnaires. The majority of respondents (63%) reported that such information is "somewhat valuable." The most frequently reported reason for the underutilization was that such instruments "require too much staff time." CONCLUSIONS: The literature supports the potential value of HRQOL patient questionnaires in clinical practice. Few rheumatologists routinely gather such information as part of patient care. Reasons for this discrepancy between utility and use are given along with recommendations intended to help increase their utilization in clinical care.