Can the patient-reported outcome instruments determine disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis?

dc.contributor.authorDurmus, B.
dc.contributor.authorAltay, Z.
dc.contributor.authorBaysal, O.
dc.contributor.authorErsoy, Y.
dc.contributor.authorErdal, A.
dc.contributor.authorCevik, R.
dc.contributor.authorOzgocmen, S.
dc.date.accessioned2026-08-12T17:31:29Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.departmentFırat Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractObjectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the indicative value of the patient-reported outcome instruments (PROs) on disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: Three hundred sixty eight patients with RA were included in this cross-sectional study. Disease activity was evaluated using both the Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS 28) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI). Patients who had DAS 28 score <3.60 points and CDAI score <10.00 points were allocated into the low disease activity group and those who had DAS 28 score >= 3.60 points and CDAI score >= 10.00 points into the moderate or high disease activity group. The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality of Life (RAQoL), and Short Form 36 (SF 36) were used as PROs. Logistic regression analysis was used to find variables, which had an indicative value for disease activity. Results: HAQ, pain and emotional reaction subscales of NHP, and bodily pain, general health and social functioning subscales of SF 36 had independent indicative values, when DAS 28 was used as dependent variable. On the other hand, HAQ, pain and emotional reaction subscales of NHP, and general health and emotional role limitation subscales of SF 36 had indicative values when CDAI was used as dependent variable. DAS 28 and CDAI both showed HAQ as the parameter with the highest odds ratio (OR). But RAQoL had shown no independent indicative value for projecting disease activity. Conclusion: It was concluded that HAQ could determine disease activity in RA better than other PROs included in this study (Tab. 4, Ref. 36). Full Text in free PDF www.bmj.sk.
dc.identifier.endpage561
dc.identifier.issn0006-9248
dc.identifier.issn1336-0345
dc.identifier.issue10
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0001-6248-8476
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-5845-0851
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0001-9680-6268
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-8035-4532
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-3395-7178
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-4860-452X
dc.identifier.pmid21954539
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-81855177092
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.startpage555
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11508/56262
dc.identifier.volume112
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000294514400004
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherAepress Sro
dc.relation.ispartofBratislava Medical Journal-Bratislavske Lekarske Listy
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.snmzKA_WoS_20260511
dc.subjectdisease activity
dc.subjectpatient-reported outcome instruments
dc.subjectrheumatoid arthritis
dc.subjectHAQ
dc.titleCan the patient-reported outcome instruments determine disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis?
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar