Shahnawaz Anwer

OBJECTIVE: Several scales are commonly used for assessing pain intensity. Among them, the numerical rating scale (NRS), visual analog scale (VAS), and verbal rating scale (VRS) are often used in clinical practice. However, no study has performed psychometric analyses of their reliability and validity in the measurement of osteoarthritic (OA) pain. Therefore, the present study examined the test-retest reliability, validity, and minimum detectable change (MDC) of the VAS, NRS, and VRS for the measurement of OA knee pain. In addition, the correlations of VAS, NRS, and VRS with demographic variables were evaluated. METHODS: The study included 121 subjects (65 women, 56 men; aged 40-80 years) with OA of the knee. Test-retest reliability of the VAS, NRS, and VRS was assessed during two consecutive visits in a 24 h interval. The validity was tested using Pearson's correlation coefficients between the baseline scores of VAS, NRS, and VRS and the demographic variables (age, body mass index [BMI], sex, and OA grade). The standard error of measurement (SEM) and the MDC were calculated to assess statistically meaningful changes. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficients of the VAS, NRS, and VRS were 0.97, 0.95, and 0.93, respectively. VAS, NRS, and VRS were significantly related to demographic variables (age, BMI, sex, and OA grade). The SEM of VAS, NRS, and VRS was 0.03, 0.48, and 0.21, respectively. The MDC of VAS, NRS, and VRS was 0.08, 1.33, and 0.58, respectively. CONCLUSION: All the three scales had excellent test-retest reliability. However, the VAS was the most reliable, with the smallest errors in the measurement of OA knee pain.

BACKGROUND: The Timed Up and Go (TUG) test is quick and easy tests to assess patients' functional mobility. However, its reliability in individuals with knee osteoarthritis (OA) has not been well established. The aims of this study were to determine the reliability and minimal detectable change of the TUG test in individuals with doubtful to moderate (Grade 1-3) knee OA. METHODS: Sixty-five subjects (25 male, 40 female), aged 45-70 years, with knee OA participated. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using two observers at different times of the same day in an alternating order. Intra-rater reliability was assessed on two consecutive visits with a 2-day interval. The standard error of measurement (SEM) and the minimum detectable change (MDC) were calculated to determine statistically meaningful changes. RESULTS: Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability were 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 - 0.98) and 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94 - 0.97), respectively. The MDC, based on measurements by a single rater and between raters, was 1.10 and 1.14 seconds, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The TUG is a reliable test with adequate MDC for clinical use in individuals with doubtful to moderate knee OA.

BACKGROUND: Various outcome measures are used for the assessment of balance and mobility in patients with stroke. The purpose of the present study was to examine test-retest reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness of the Timed Up and Go Test (TUG), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), and Dynamic Gait Index (DGI) for measuring balance in patients with chronic stroke. METHODS: Fifty-six patients (39 male and 17 female) with chronic stroke participated in this study. A senior physical therapist assessed the test-retest reliability and validity of three scales, including the DGI, TUG, and BBS over two testing sessions. In addition, the third assessment of each scale was taken at the time of discharge to determine the responsiveness of the three outcome measures. RESULTS: = 0.99) were excellent. The standard error of measurement (SEM) of the TUG, DGI, and BBS were 1.16, 0.71, and 0.98, respectively. The minimal detectable change (MDC) of the TUG, DGI, and BBS were 3.2, 1.9, and 2.7, respectively. There was a significant correlation found between the DGI and BBS (first reading [r] = 0.75; second reading [r] = 0.77), TUG and BBS (first reading [r] = -.52; second reading [r] = -.53), and the TUG and DGI (first reading [r] = 0.45; second reading [r] = 0.48), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The test-retest reliability of the TUG, BBS, and DGI was excellent. The DGI demonstrated slightly better responsiveness than TUG and BBS. However, the small sample size of this study limits the validity of the results.

[Purpose] The aim of present study was to investigate the effects of isometric quadriceps exercise on muscle strength, pain, and function in knee osteoarthritis. [Subjects and Methods] Outpatients (N=42, 21 per group; age range 40-65 years; 13 men and 29 women) with osteoarthritis of the knee participated in the study. The experimental group performed isometric exercises including isometric quadriceps, straight leg raising, and isometric hip adduction exercise 5 days a week for 5 weeks, whereas the control group did not performed any exercise program. The outcome measures or dependent variables selected for this study were pain intensity, isometric quadriceps strength, and knee function. These variables were measured using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), strength gauge device, and reduced WOMAC index, respectively. All the measurements were taken at baseline (week 0) and at the end of the trial at week 5. [Results] In between-group comparisons, the maximum isometric quadriceps strength, reduction in pain intensity, and improvement in function in the isometric exercise group at the end of the 5th week were significantly greater than those of the control group (p<0.05). [Conclusion] The 5-week isometric quadriceps exercise program showed beneficial effects on quadriceps muscle strength, pain, and functional disability in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee.