The DASH , the  Michigan H and Outcomes Question naire ( MHQ ) , the  Patient Evaluation Measure ( PEM ) , and the  Patient-Reported Wrist Evaluation ( PRWE ) had evidence supporting their reliability , validity , and responsiveness .
A post-hoc review of excluded studies revealed the AUSCAN Osteoarthritis H and Index as another suitable instrument that had favourable reliability , validity , and responsiveness .
The DASH , MHQ , and AUSCAN Osteoarthritis H and Index instruments were supported by the most favourable empirical evidence for validity , reliability , and responsiveness .
The PEM and PRWE also had favourable empirical evidence reported for these elements .
This paper aim ed to identify condition-specific patient-reported outcome measures used in clinical trials among people with wrist osteoarthritis and summarise empirical peer- review ed evidence supporting their reliability , validity , and responsiveness to change .
Responsiveness of patient reported outcomes including fatigue, sleep quality, activity limitation, and quality of life following treatment with abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis
Objective : To evaluate the responsiveness of patient reported outcomes ( PROs ) , including fatigue , sleep , activity limitation , and quality of life , in patients with rheumatoid arthritis ( RA ) . Methods : Data were considered from a r and omised controlled trial comparing  abatacept ( n = 258 )  with placebo ( n = 133 ) on a background of DMARD treatment in RA patients who were inadequate responders to anti-TNF therapy ( ATTAIN study ) . PROs assessed included SF-36 , activity limitation , fatigue , and sleep . For each outcome the treatment difference , relative per cent improvement , st and ardised response mean ( SRM ) , and relative efficiency for assessing an outcome ’s ability to detect a treatment effect relative to tender joint count ( TJC ) were calculated . A relative efficiency > 1 suggests a measure that is more efficient than TJC in detecting treatment effect . Results : Moderate to large SRMs ( ⩾0.6 ) were observed for the PRO measures . In particular , SRMs ( 95 % confidence interval ) were : physician global , 0.72 ( 0.51 to 0.94 ) ; HAQ , 0.63 ( 0.42 to 0.85 ) ; SF-36 physical component score , 0.62 ( 0.40 to 0.83 ) ; SF-36 bodily pain , 0.68 ( 0.46 to 0.90 ) ; and fatigue , 0.59 ( 0.38 to 0.81 ) . Relative efficiencies for physician global ( 1.6 ) , SF-36 bodily pain domain ( 1.4 ) , pain intensity ( 1.4 ) , HAQ ( 1.2 ) , SF-36 physical component score ( 1.2 ) , fatigue ( 1.1 ) , and patient global assessment ( 1.04 ) were all more responsive than TJC . The SF-36 mental component score ( 0.3 ) , swollen joint count ( 0.6 ) , activity limitation ( 0.8 ) , sleep ( 0.7 ) , and C reactive protein ( 0.9 ) were less responsive . Conclusions : Using PROs for evaluating treatments for RA can detect improvements and will identify changes that are important to patients . In general , physical assessment s are more responsive to an effective treatment than mental assessment
The DASH , the  Michigan H and Outcomes Question naire ( MHQ ) , the  Patient Evaluation Measure ( PEM ) , and the  Patient-Reported Wrist Evaluation ( PRWE ) had evidence supporting their reliability , validity , and responsiveness .
A post-hoc review of excluded studies revealed the AUSCAN Osteoarthritis H and Index as another suitable instrument that had favourable reliability , validity , and responsiveness .
The DASH , MHQ , and AUSCAN Osteoarthritis H and Index instruments were supported by the most favourable empirical evidence for validity , reliability , and responsiveness .
The PEM and PRWE also had favourable empirical evidence reported for these elements .
This paper aim ed to identify condition-specific patient-reported outcome measures used in clinical trials among people with wrist osteoarthritis and summarise empirical peer- review ed evidence supporting their reliability , validity , and responsiveness to change .