Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M Boers

Publications and source records attributed to M Boers.

At least 91 records · Page 5Linked to original sources
PubMed1999

Radiological scoring methods in ankylosing spondylitis: reliability and sensitivity to change over one year.

Our aim was to compare reliability and sensitivity to change of different radiological scoring methods in ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Two trained observers scored 30 AS radiographs twice with an interval of 4 weeks. The same two observers scored 187 AS radiographs in pairs, at baseline and after one year followup, to measure change and agreement on change. The sacroiliac (SI) joints were scored in 5 grades by the New York method and the SASSS (Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score). Hips were graded 0-5 (according to Larsen). Cervical and lumbar spine were graded (0-4, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Radiological Index, BASRI), and scored in detail (0-72, SASSS). SASSS of the cervical and lumbar spine scored on the anterior sites of the vertebrae proved most reliable, with both intra and interobserver intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) between 0.87 and 0.97. BASRI was only moderately reliable, with Cohen's kappa ranging between 0.50 and 0.82 for intra, and 0.38-0.64 for interobserver reliability. Similarly, SI joint scores (New York, SASSS) showed intraobserver kappa between 0.56 and 0.84, and interobserver reliability with kappa between 0.37 and 0.47. Larsen hip scores proved unreliable: moderate intraobserver kappa of 0.47-0.58 and low interobserver kappa of 0.29. After retraining, interobserver kappa did not improve (0.45 and 0.17). In retrospect, a one year period was too short to measure sensitivity to change. Observers agreed that no change occurred in up to 89% of cases. A measurable change of deterioration or improvement occurred rarely. We conclude that in AS, only the SASSS method for the spine and the BASRI reached good reliability. Other methods for spine, SI joints, and hips were moderately reliable at best. There was moderate to good agreement on no change between the observers. No method showed change over a period of one year in a considerable number of patients.

Arthrography↗
PubMed1999

Patient based methods for assessing adverse events in clinical trials in rheumatology. Progress report for the OMERACT Drug Toxicity Working Party. Outcome Measures in Rheumatology.

There has been increasing recognition in recent years that the measurement of drug related toxicities in rheumatology clinical trials has been sub-optimal. The OMERACT Drug Toxicity Working Party was established to address this issue. The first task of the working party was to identify a minimum set of attributes of drug related toxicity that would be important to patients, clinicians, investigators, and policymakers. The working party then developed consensus on a standard set of properties for instruments to measure these attributes. Existing instruments in the field of rheumatology were ascertained by literature review and by contact with experts in the field. Four instruments were ascertained and evaluated using the guidelines developed by the working party. This report outlines the progress and preliminary results of these activities.

Antirheumatic Agents↗
PubMed1999

The responsiveness of generic quality of life instruments in rheumatic diseases. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

To review the available evidence that has used generic instruments alone or in comparison with disease specific instruments. A systematic review was carried out using the methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. We used MEDLINE and EMBASE searches and we performed a hand search of the abstracts listed under "quality of life" at American College of Rheumatology (ACR) meetings. Selection was limited to randomized controlled trials (RCT) using generic instruments in populations older than 18 years with any of the following diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia, osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and ankylosing spondylitis. Language was restricted to English papers. Studies using only disease-specific instruments were excluded. From 488 articles retrieved, 13 reports of 10 randomized controlled trials were selected. There were 101 abstracts on quality of life in ACR abstract books; 78 abstracts contained data on generic instruments, and of these, 9 described their use in RCT. Despite a substantial increase in the number of papers and abstracts addressing different aspects of generic questionnaires, the majority of the papers were descriptive. The evidence is not yet available to document that any of the generic instruments pass the requirements of the OMERACT Filter.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

Sensitivity to change of generic quality of life instruments in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: preliminary findings in the generic health OMERACT study. OMERACT/ILAR Task Force on Generic Quality of Life. Life Outcome Measures in Rheumatology. International League of Associations for Rheumatology.

This is the initial report of the generic health OMERACT study concerned with the sensitivity to change of generic quality of life (QOL) measures. Our objective was to determine which QOL instrument is best able to show a statistically significant improvement in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) demonstrating relevant improvement in a core set of disease activity and disease-specific disability measures. A multicenter controlled trial of a single group with repeated measurements at 0 (baseline), 3, and 6 months was conducted. All participating centers recruited 10 patients with RA who were about to start methotrexate therapy for the first time because of active disease. Assessments included disease activity measures, disease-specific disability measures, and generic QOL measures. To date, 40 patients have been recruited from 4 centers for the study. After 6 months of treatment many of the generic QOL measures showed a 20% improvement from baseline and medium standardized response means around 0.5. In particular, the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) and the Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality of Life (RAQOL) measures had the largest percentage improvement (22 and 29%, respectively) and standardized response means (both with 0.54). Early results on the sensitivity of generic health QOL measures are promising, in particular for the NHP and RAQOL measures.

Antirheumatic Agents↗
PubMed1999

Preliminary core set of domains and reporting requirements for longitudinal observational studies in rheumatology.

Observational and longitudinal observational studies (LOS) provide essential information about the course and outcome of rheumatic disorders that cannot be provided by randomized controlled trials, and they constitute the major clinical scientific communication in rheumatology. There has been no consensus as to the full and appropriate content of LOS. This report defines a core set of domains and reporting requirements for LOS. At the 1998 OMERACT IV Conference a consensus process evaluated the literature of rheumatology in light of the constructs, variables, and outcomes of rheumatology by using introductory lectures, nominal groups, and plenary sessions. The result of this process was to identify 5 "core" domains that should be included in every LOS: Health Status, Disease Process, Damage, Mortality, and Toxicity/Adverse Reactions. Two additional domains, Work Disability and Costs, were recognized as important, but need not be used in all LOS. Eleven subdomains were identified that divided the domains into convenient clinical and conceptual units. A set of reporting requirements was also determined. The core recommendations, which follow on the WHO ICIDH-2 outline, are not disease-specific; the substitution of different "disease process" and "damage" measures make them suitable for many rheumatic disorders. The core set is intended to serve as a core for LOS in almost all rheumatic conditions.

Decision Making↗
PubMed1998

Balneotherapy and quality assessment: interobserver reliability of the Maastricht criteria list and the need for blinded quality assessment.

This study investigates aspects of the reliability of the Maastricht criteria list for quality assessment in systematic reviews, and whether blinded reviewing is necessary to prevent review bias. We used the data set of 12 articles from a systematic review concerning the efficacy of balneotherapy in patients with arthritis. Twenty reviewers participated of which two reviewers, who have been involved in developing the Maastricht criteria list, acted as reference standard. Half of all assessments were performed blindly. A high level of agreement was found between the reviewers and a high level of correlation with the reference standard. The quality scores between the blinded and unblinded assessment did not differ much. Based on the results we conclude that the Maastricht criteria list is a reliable instrument in quality assessment of clinical trials. Within the limits of this study we found no evidence that blinding is necessary to prevent review bias.

Arthritis↗
PubMed1998

The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus.

Most systematic reviews rely substantially on the assessment of the methodological quality of the individual trials. The aim of this study was to obtain consensus among experts about a set of generic core items for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The invited participants were experts in the field of quality assessment of RCTs. The initial item pool contained all items from existing criteria lists. Subsequently, we reduced the number of items by using the Delphi consensus technique. Each Delphi round comprised a questionnaire, an analysis, and a feedback report. The feedback report included staff team decisions made on the basis of the analysis and their justification. A total of 33 international experts agreed to participate, of whom 21 completed all questionnaires. The initial item pool of 206 items was reduced to 9 items in three Delphi rounds. The final criteria list (the Delphi list) was satisfactory to all participants. It is a starting point on the way to a minimum reference standard for RCTs on many different research topics. This list is not intended to replace, but rather to be used alongside, existing criteria lists.

Delphi Technique↗
PubMed1998

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of combination therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: randomized comparison of combined step-down prednisolone, methotrexate and sulphasalazine with sulphasalazine alone. COBRA Trial Group. Combinatietherapie Bij Reumatoïde Artritis.

OBJECTIVE: Assessment of the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of early intervention in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, with combined step-down prednisolone, methotrexate and sulphasalazine, compared to sulphasalazine alone. METHODS: Multicentre 56 week randomized double-blind trial with full economic analysis of direct costs and utility analysis with rating scale and standard gamble measurement techniques. RESULTS: The combined-treatment group included 76 patients and the sulphasalazine group 78 patients. The mean total costs per patient in the first 56 weeks of follow-up were $5519 for combined treatment and $6511 for treatment with sulphasalazine alone (P = 0.37). Out-patient care, in-patient care and non-health care each contributed about one-third to the total costs. The combined-treatment group appeared to generate savings in the length of hospital stay for RA, non-protocol drugs and costs of home help, but comparisons were not statistically significant. Protocol drugs and monitoring were slightly more expensive in the combined-treatment group. Clinical, radiographic and functional outcomes significantly favoured combined treatment at week 28 (radiography also at week 56). Utility scores also favoured combined treatment. CONCLUSION: Combined treatment is cost-effective due to enhanced efficacy at lower or equal direct costs.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Combination therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: updated systematic review.

In a second update of a systematic review, many new developments in the combined drug treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are highlighted. In early RA patients, step-down bridge therapy that includes corticosteroids leads to much enhanced efficacy at acceptable or low toxicity. The effects on joint damage may be persistent, but the symptomatic effects are probably dependent on continued corticosteroid dosing. In late patients, cyclosporin improves a suboptimal clinical response to methotrexate, and the triple combination of methotrexate, sulphasalazine and hydroxychloroquine appears to be clinically better than the components. Other combinations are either untested, tested at low sample size, or show negative interaction. In view of the low volume of evidence, most studies need confirmation by replication.

Antirheumatic Agents↗
PubMed1997

[Combination therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: the COBRA study].

The scheme 'Combination therapy in rheumatoid arthritis' (COBRA) in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) involves administration of not only sulfasalazine but also prednisolone and methotrexate during the first six months. The trial showed that the COBRA scheme over a period of 1.5 years was superior to sulfasalazine alone: less disease activity in the major part of the year of treatment, less articular damage on radiographs, fewer side effects and equal or reduced costs. An 'aggressive' treatment in patients with early RA is indicated, with (re)assessment of the use of corticosteroids.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents↗
PubMed1997

[The value of roentgen pictures in rheumatoid arthritis].

Rheumatoid arthritis leads to many abnormalities in radiographs as a result of irreversible destruction of cartilage or underlying bone. Radiographs of hands and feet provide the most useful information. Erosions and joint space narrowing in particular can be assessed reliably, and give a good impression of the destruction of the joints. Several validated scoring methods are available to assess the severity and progression of joint damage. Abnormalities are already present shortly after onset of the disease. About 70% of the patients develop erosive disease and in the majority of the cases erosions are present one year after onset. Patients who are rheumatoid factor positive in particular develop erosions. Damage occurs earlier and is often more severe in the joints of the feet than in joints of the hands. The early occurrence of irreversible joint destruction and the availability of treatment effective in reducing this damage necessitates early treatment of patients with RA.

Arthritis, Rheumatoid↗
PubMed1997

Randomised comparison of combined step-down prednisolone, methotrexate and sulphasalazine with sulphasalazine alone in early rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: The value of intensive combination therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis is unproven. In a multicentre, double-blind, randomised trial (COBRA), we compared the combination of sulphasalazine (2 g/day), methotrexate (7.5 mg/week), and prednisolone (initially 60 mg/day, tapered in 6 weekly steps to 7.5 mg/day) with sulphasalazine alone. METHODS: 155 patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (median duration 4 months) were randomly assigned combined treatment (76) or sulphasalazine alone (79). Prednisolone and methotrexate were tapered and stopped after 28 and 40 weeks, respectively. The main outcomes were the pooled index (a weighted change score of five disease activity measures) and the Sharp/Van der Heijde radiographic damage score in hands and feet. Independent health-care professionals assessed the main outcomes without knowledge of treatment allocation. FINDINGS: At week 28, the mean pooled index was 1.4 (95% CI 1.2-1.6) in the combined treatment group and 0.8 (0.6-1.0) in the sulphasalazine group (p < 0.0001). At this time, 55 (72%) and 39 (49%) patients, respectively, were improved according to American College of Rheumatology criteria. The clinical difference between the groups decreased and was no longer significant after prednisolone was stopped, and there were no further changes after methotrexate was stopped. At 28 weeks, the radiographic damage score had increased by a median of 1 (range 0-28) in the combined-therapy group and 4 (0-44) in the sulphasalazine group (p < 0.0001). The increases at week 56 (2 [0-43] vs 6 [0-54], p = 0.004), and at week 80 (4 [0-80] vs 12 [0-72], p = 0.01) were also significant. Further analysis suggests that combined therapy immediately suppressed damage progression, whereas sulphasalazine did so less effectively and with a lag of 6 to 12 months. There were fewer withdrawals in the combined therapy than the sulphasalazine group (6 [8%] vs 23 [29%]), and they occurred later. INTERPRETATION: This combined-therapy regimen offers additional disease control over and above that of sulphasalazine alone that persists for up to a year after corticosteroids are stopped. Although confirmatory studies and long-term follow-up are needed, this approach may prove useful in the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

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.

Significant progress has been made in outcome measurement procedures for osteoarthritis (OA) clinical trials, and guidelines have been established by the US Food and Drug Administration, European League Against Rheumatism, the World Health Organization/International League of Associations for Rheumatology, and the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science. However, there remains a need for further international harmonization of measurement procedures used to establish beneficial effects in Phase III clinical trials. A key objective of the OMERACT III conference was to establish a core set of outcome measures for future phase III clinical trials. During the conference, using a combination of discussion and polling procedures, a consensus was reached by at least 90% of participants that the following 4 domains should be evaluated in future phase III trials of knee, hip, and hand OA: pain, physical function, patient global assessment, and, for studies of one year or longer, joint imaging (using standardized methods for taking and rating radiographs, or any demonstrably superior imaging technique). These evidence based preferences, achieved with a high degree of consensus, establish an international standard for future phase III trials and will also facilitate metaanalysis and Cochrane Collaborative Project goals.

Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic↗