PHYS THER
Vol. 84, No. 10, October 2004, pp. 934-972
Ottawa Panel Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Therapeutic Exercises in the Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis in Adults
Ottawa Panel Members
Ottawa Methods Group
Lucie Brosseau
Physiotherapy Program, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
George A Wells
Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa
Peter Tugwell
Centre for Global Health, Institute of Population Health, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Mary Egan
Occupational Therapy Program, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa
Claire-Jehanne Dubouloz
Occupational Therapy Program, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa
Lynn Casimiro
Physiotherapy Program, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa
Vivian A Robinson
Centre for Global Health, Institute of Population Health
Lucie Pelland
Physiotherapy Program, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa
Jessie McGowan
Director, Medical Library, Centre for Global Health, Institute of Population Health
External Experts
Mary Bell
(Rheumatologist) Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Hillel M Finestone
(Physiatrist) Sisters of Charity of Ottawa Health Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
France Légaré
(Evidence-Based Practice in Family Medicine), University of Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada
Catherine Caron
(Family Physician) Sisters of Charity of Ottawa Health Service
Sydney Lineker
The Arthritis Society, Ontario Division, Research Co-ordinator, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Angela Haines-Wangda
Ottawa Hospital, General Campus, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Marion Russell-Doreleyers
who practices acupuncture, MSc, Canadian Physiotherapy Association and Ottawa Arthritis Rehabilitation and Education Program, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Martha Hall
Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists and Ottawa Arthritis Rehabilitation and Education Program
Paddy Cedar
patient with rheumatoid arthritis (named with her written permission)
Assistant Manuscript Writer
Marnie Lamb
School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa
Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to: Lucie Brosseau, PhD, Physiotherapy Program, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, 451 Smyth Rd, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1H 8M5 (lbrossea{at}uottawa.ca).
 |
Abstract
|
|---|
Background and Purpose. The purpose of this project was to create guidelines for the use of therapeutic exercises and manual therapy in the management of adult patients (>18 years of age) with a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis according to the 1987 American Rheumatism Association criteria. Methods. Evidence from comparative controlled trials was identified and synthesized using The Cochrane Collaboration methods. An expert panel was formed by inviting professional stakeholder organizations to each nominate a representative. This panel developed a set of criteria for grading the strength of both the evidence and the recommendation. Results. Six positive recommendations of clinical benefit were developed on therapeutic exercises. The efficacy of manual therapy interventions could not be determined for lack of evidence. Discussion and Conclusion. The panel recommends the use of therapeutic exercises for rheumatoid arthritis. Further research is needed to determine the efficacy of manual therapy in the management of this disease.
Key Words: Clinical practice guidelines • Epidemiology • Evidence-based practice • Physical rehabilitation • Rheumatology • Rheumatoid arthritis
|
Introduction
|
|---|
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic inflammatory disease that produces a progressive degeneration of the musculoskeletal system.1 One of the most prevalent chronic conditions, RA is found in approximately 1% of the adult population in the United States.2–6 In adults, RA is more common among women than men by a ratio of 5:16 and is most prevalent among those aged 40 to 60 years. Rheumatoid arthritis is a highly disabling disease associated with high morbidity. Even with appropriate drug therapy, up to 7% of patients are disabled to some extent 5 years after disease onset and 50% are too disabled to work 10 years after onset.7 Consequently, RA results in considerable direct costs, such as health care expenses, and indirect costs, such as loss of productivity due to morbidity and decreased life expectancy1; these combined costs are estimated at 1% of the US gross national product.8 Impairments, disabilities, and handicaps associated with RA can be devastating, leading to pain, activity restriction, and diminished quality of life, while placing a strain on the health care system and society.1
Substantial progress has been made in the medical management of RA over the last decade, but rehabilitation specialists still must provide efficient and effective interventions for their patients. The development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (EBCPGs) for rehabilitation of adults with RA will help patients and clinicians choose effective interventions, which is important because the efficacy of rehabilitation interventions in RA management has a direct bearing on the combined costs of the disease.6 According to Woolf, EBCPGs are "the official statements or policies of major organizations and agencies on the proper indications for performing a procedure or treatment or the proper management for specific clinical problems."9(p1812) The appropriate use of such statements to direct practice has been proven beneficial to the rehabilitation process and patient health outcomes.10
The Ottawa Panel was convened to evaluate the evidence for the effectiveness of 10 physical rehabilitation interventions for RA. Physical rehabilitation is a combination of therapeutic exercises, manual therapies, modalities, application of adaptive equipment, education, and re-education for the management of activities of daily living (ADL). The interventions examined by the Ottawa Panel were as follows: (1) acupuncture; (2) assistive devices; (3) bed rest; (4) conservation of energy; (5) electrotherapy, including electrical stimulation, low-level laser therapy, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and therapeutic ultrasound; (6) manual therapy; (7) patient education; (8) splinting and orthotics; (9) therapeutic exercises, with an emphasis on the intensity of the exercise program; and (10) thermotherapy, including heat therapy, cryotherapy, and balneotherapy. This article discusses only the evidence related to therapeutic exercises—including specific strengthening exercises and whole-body exercises (eg, general fitness and aerobic conditioning)—and manual therapy.
The target users of these EBCPGs for therapeutic exercises and manual therapy are physical therapists, occupational therapists, physiatrists, orthopedic surgeons, rheumatologists, family physicians, acupuncturists, and patients. The aim of developing the guidelines discussed in this article was to promote the appropriate use of therapeutic exercises and manual therapy in the management of RA.
|
Methods
|
|---|
The development process of these EBCPGs was similar to that of the Philadelphia Panel, except that a different target population was used.11 Briefly, the Ottawa Methods Group (OMG), a group of 9 methodologists with experience in developing EBCPGs, asked professional associations interested in the care of people with RA for suggestions of individuals with both clinical expertise in the management of the disease and familiarity with EBCPGs. From among the suggestions given, the OMG chose 9 experts to serve as panel members. These experts in RA were a rheumatologist, a physiatrist, a physician with experience in evidence-based medicine, a family physician, 3 physical therapists (including one who practiced acupuncture and one involved in clinical research), an occupational therapist, and a patient with RA. The Ottawa Panel consisted of these 9 experts and all members of the OMG.
One OMG member assembled a research and support staff with expertise in meta-analyses, rheumatology rehabilitation interventions, research methods, or the development and assessment of EBCPGs. The OMG then established a priori a set of inclusion criteria for the study designs, subject samples, interventions, and outcomes to allow the research staff to select the most relevant material as evidence of the effectiveness of therapeutic exercise and manual therapy. The OMG also reviewed the inclusion criteria to ensure that the approach to the study selection was reproducible and systematic. This a priori protocol guided separate systematic reviews of the literature for each intervention.
The research staff reviewed articles and created evidence tables for them (see "Clinical Practice Guidelines"), which the 9 clinical experts received in preparation for their meeting with the OMG. These tables were used as the basis for making the recommendations.
|
Target Population
|
|---|
Included were studies with samples of adult patients (>18 years of age) with a diagnosis of RA according to the 1987 American Rheumatism Association (ARA) criteria.12 A patient was said to have RA if he or she satisfied at least 4 of the following 7 ARA criteria: (1) morning stiffness, (2) arthritis of 3 or more joints, (3) arthritis of the hand joints, (4) symmetric arthritis, (5) rheumatoid nodules, (6) serum rheumatoid factor, or (7) radiologic changes.12 Studies with patients with RA affecting peripheral joints were eligible. Studies with patients with both chronic and acute RA were included in our analysis because patients with both types of RA were included in the different clinical trials studied, sometimes in the same trial. Where possible, however, the recommendations clearly indicate whether the intervention is appropriate for chronic or acute conditions. The recommendations also include classification of functional capacity in patients with RA described as: (I) complete functional capacity with ability to carry out all usual duties without handicaps, (II) functional capacity adequate to conduct normal activities despite the handicap of discomfort or limited mobility of one or more joints, (III) functional capacity adequate to perform only a few or none of the duties of usual occupation or of self-care, or (IV) largely or wholly incapacitated, with the patient bedridden or wheelchair-bound, permitting little or no self-care.6 When the recommendations do not indicate disease severity or functional severity, it is because the trial on which the recommendation was based did not mention severity (Appendix 1).
Studies of patients with RA who had back or neck problems were excluded because of the numerous and varied associated signs and symptoms. Another reason for not considering spine disorders for this article is that Philadelphia Panel guidelines developed by the same methodologists were recently published for back and neck pain.11 Studies of patients who had recently had surgery also were excluded. Further exclusion criteria included studies with patients who had one of the following conditions: (1) other rheumatologic or musculoskeletal problems, such as tendinitis, bursitis, or fractures; (2) major medical problems that could interfere with the rehabilitation process or incapacitate functional status; or (3) psychiatric conditions. Studies of subjects without known pathology or impairments also were excluded. The majority of studies included patients with RA at chronic stages (>12 years' duration).
If the study sample contained individuals with mixed arthritic conditions, the study was excluded unless those conditions involved RA and osteoarthritis (OA), in which case the study was included only if the proportion of patients with RA was at least 75%. For further inclusion and exclusion criteria, see Table 1.
|
Literature Search
|
|---|
The library scientist developed a structured literature search based on the sensitive search strategy for randomized controlled trials (RCTs)—a strategy recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration13—and modifications proposed by Haynes et al14 to that strategy. The Cochrane Collaboration method minimizes bias through a systematic approach to the literature search, study selection, and data extraction and synthesis. The search was organized around the condition and interventions rather than the outcomes because it was an a priori search. Thus, we had no control over the outcomes the authors decided to measure (see Appendix 2 for an example of the search strategy).
The library scientist expanded the search strategy to identify case-control, cohort, and nonrandomized studies and conducted the search in the electronic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to December 2002. She also searched the registries of the Cochrane Field of Rehabilitation and Related Therapies, the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and the University of Ottawa EBCPGs Web site. Finally, she searched the reference lists of all of the included trials for relevant studies and contacted content experts for additional studies.
In the first round of study inclusion or exclusion, 2 independent reviewers, trained and experienced occupational therapist or physical therapist students, appraised the titles and abstracts of the literature search, using a checklist with the a priori–defined selection criteria (Tab. 1). More junior students were paired with fourth-year occupational therapist or physical therapist students who were experienced with the Philadelphia Panel11 methodology. Each pair of reviewers was assigned to a specific intervention. Within each pair of reviewers, individuals independently read the title and abstract of each article and created an individual list of all of the articles of the database with a reason for including or excluding each article. If the reviewers were uncertain about a particular article after having read the abstract, they ordered the article and read it in full before making a determination. Before deciding whether to include or exclude the article, a comparison of their individual lists was performed. A senior reviewer who is a methodologist and a clinical expert in arthritis (LB) checked the 2 independent lists of articles and the reason for inclusion or exclusion to determine potential inconsistencies. Eleven percent of the abstracts reviewed needed the consultation of the senior reviewer. For the second round of inclusion and exclusion, the pairs of reviewers retrieved articles selected for inclusion from the first round and independently assessed the full articles for inclusion or exclusion in the study. Using predetermined extraction forms, the pairs of reviewers independently extracted data from included articles on the population characteristics, details of the interventions, trial design, allocation concealment, and outcomes. The pairs of reviewers assessed methodological quality using the Jadad scale, a 5-point scale with reported reliability and validity that assigns 2 points each for randomization and double blinding and 1 point for description of withdrawals.15,16 The reviewers resolved differences in data extraction and quality assessment through consensus with the senior reviewer. This consensus served to support the reliability of data obtained with the article selection process.
|
Study Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
|
|---|
The inclusion/exclusion criteria were based on previous criteria used by the Philadelphia Panel. This list of criteria, which had been created for multiple diagnoses, including back and neck pain, was adapted and approved by the OMG for use with RA (Tab. 1).
All original comparative controlled studies that evaluated the specific intervention in a sample of patients with RA were included: RCTs, controlled clinical trials (CCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies. (Controlled clinical trials are the same as RCTs except that, according to the Jadad scale, CCTs are either not randomized or poorly randomized.) Crossover studies were included, and, to avoid potential confounders, the data from only the first part of the study (before crossing) were analyzed. (Data from the first part are more specific than data from the second part because once the study patients change from the intervention group to the placebo group, the outcome could be due to either the intervention or the placebo. Thus, such results are not useful for measuring the special effect of each intervention.)
Uncontrolled cohort studies (studies with no comparison group) and case series were excluded, as were eligible studies with greater than 20% dropout rates or a sample size of less than 5 patients per group. Abstracts were excluded because none of the abstracts found had sufficient data for analysis and the full studies of the abstracts could not be obtained from the authors. Trials published in languages other than French and English were not analyzed because of the time and cost involved in translation. Head-to-head studies (that is, the comparison of 2 active interventions, such as therapeutic exercises versus transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation) were generally excluded in these recommendations. Because we were interested in making a recommendation specifically about therapeutic exercise or manual therapy, we rejected head-to-head studies. At the meeting, the Ottawa Panel recommended that a direct comparison of the intervention with either placebo or control was more valid for measuring the specific effect of the intervention. We did include, however, studies with head-to-head comparisons of high- versus low-intensity exercise as highly relevant for rheumatology practice in rehabilitation, especially in the presence of an inflammatory disease such as RA, where the dosage and intensity of therapy could make a difference in pain tolerance and joint damage. For further exclusion criteria, see Table 1.
|
Rehabilitation Interventions Related to Therapeutic Exercises and Manual Therapy
|
|---|
Rehabilitation interventions related to therapeutic exercises were identified as specific functional strengthening exercises, whole-body functional strengthening exercises, and physical activity. Strengthening exercises were defined as isometric, concentric, eccentric, and isokinetic resistance exercises. Specific functional strengthening exercises were defined as strengthening exercises applied to muscles crossing one specific joint or within one specific body part, such as the hand, shoulder, or knee. Whole-body functional strengthening exercises were defined as general strengthening exercises applied to muscles crossing many joints or within large body parts involving several joints such as the lower extremity. Physical activity was defined as a combination of strengthening and aerobic exercises (ie, therapeutic exercise and activities to increase endurance). Manual therapy was defined as passive physiologic and accessory joint movements, muscle stretching, and soft tissue mobilization applied to a specific joint. Definitions provided in this article were written according to the description of therapeutic exercises program in the primary trials included in this review (Appendix 1).
Acceptable comparators were placebo, untreated, or use of educational pamphlets or written instructions for self-management. Concurrent therapies (such as electroanalgesia and medication) were accepted only if provided to both the experimental and control groups. Studies with designs where patients were their own controls, were excluded. No limitations based on methodological quality were imposed a priori; however, the quality of the comparative controlled studies was considered when grading the recommendations resulting from our analysis.
|
Outcomes
|
|---|
The primary endpoints for measurement of effectiveness were the validated and reliable outcome measures recommended by the conference on Outcome Measures for Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials (OMERACT)17 and by the theoretical framework for rehabilitation application.18 The outcomes were selected according to the Philadelphia Panel recommendations and were based on the new proposal of the Canadian Society for the International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps,19 which involved the concepts of organic systems and impairment, abilities and disabilities, and life habits and handicap situation. The a priori outcomes were classified according to these concepts:
- organic systems and impairment: number of inflamed joints, number of acute phase reactants (eg, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, which is "a test that measures the rate at which red blood cells settle through a column of liquid"20), radiological damage, and side effects;
- abilities and disabilities: pain reduction, muscle force, range of motion (ROM), postural status, and duration of morning stiffness; and
- life habits and handicap situation: global physician assessment, global patient assessment, gait status, walking speed, walking distance, cadence, stride length, functional status, patient adherence, patient satisfaction, length of stay, discharge disposition, quality of life, and return to work.
Studies were included if any one of the aforementioned outcomes was measured. A positive recommendation was made only if a specific intervention was effective for an outcome as measured with a validated scale.17,18 The Ottawa Panel determined if the measurement was valid, a decision that was based on the existing literature, the outcome measure from OMERACT,17 and McDowell and Newell's research.21 Psychological outcomes such as depression were excluded. For more details, see the list of inclusion/exclusion criteria (Tab. 1).
The inclusion or exclusion of the report was determined by panel consensus. However, as many articles as possible were included to increase the statistical power of the final results. Each result comprised pooled data from studies measuring the same intervention and the same outcome over a similar time period.
|
Statistical Analysis
|
|---|
Data were analyzed using Review Manager software.22 Continuous data, "data with a potentially infinite number of possible values along a continuum,"23 were analyzed using the weighted mean differences (WMDs) between the intervention and control groups at the end of the study, where the weight is the inverse of the variance. A WMD is "a method of meta-analysis used to combine measures on continuous scales (such as weight), where the mean, standard deviation, and sample size in each group are known."23 Dichotomous data, or data with only 2 classifications,23 were analyzed using relative risks. According to Cochrane, the relative risk is "the ratio of risk in the intervention group to the risk in the control group. The risk (proportion, probability, or rate) is the ratio of people with an event in a group to the total in the group."23
Heterogeneity (ie, variability or difference between studies23) was tested using the chi-square statistic. We tested data heterogeneity among the results of different included studies to make sure that only homogeneous data were pooled together. When heterogeneity was not significant, fixed-effect models were used. A fixed-effect model is a statistical model that stipulates that the units under analysis (eg, participants in a meta-analysis study) are the ones of interest and thus constitute the entire population of units.23 Fixed-effect models were used to generalize data across the included studies. Random-effects models include both within-study sampling error (variance) and between-studies variation in the assessment of the uncertainty (confidence interval) of a meta-analysis' results23 and are more severe than fixed-effect models. Such random-effects models were used when heterogeneity was significant. All figures were created using Cochrane Collaboration methodology22 (www.cochrane.org). The square in Figure 1 illustrates the WMD between the 2 groups when comparing them for a specific outcome of interest. The horizontal line represents the standard deviation of the WMD. If the standard deviation line touches the central vertical line of the graph, the confidence interval is 0 and the difference between the 2 groups is not statistically significant. For example, functional status, pain relief, or ROM in flexion for the group receiving shoulder strengthening exercises are not statistically different from those of the control group.
View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1. Shoulder functional strengthening versus control. ADL=activities of daily living, ROM=range of motion, VAS=visual analog scale.
|
|
Based on previous studies in the musculoskeletal domain24 and on consensus,11 clinical improvement for all interventions studied by the Ottawa Panel was defined as 15% improvement relative to a control. This figure can be justified because it was developed by the Philadelphia Panel, whose members are experts in musculoskeletal practice, and confirmed by another panel (the Ottawa Panel) whose members included specialists in rheumatology and an expert biostatistician.
To determine clinical improvement, the absolute benefit and relative difference in the change from baseline were calculated. Absolute benefit was calculated as the improvement in the treatment group less the improvement in the control group, maintaining the original units of measurement. Relative difference was calculated as the absolute benefit divided by the baseline mean (weighted for the intervention and control groups). For dichotomous data, the relative percentage of improvement was calculated as the difference in the percentage of improvement between the intervention and control groups.11
The recommendations were graded by their level (I for RCTs, II for nonrandomized studies) and strength (A, B, C+, C, or D) of evidence. Evidence from one or more RCTs of a statistically significant, clinically important benefit (>15%) was necessary for a grade A recommendation. A grade B recommendation was given to a statistically significant, clinically important benefit (>15%) if the evidence was from observational studies or CCTs. Evidence of clinical importance (>15%) but not statistical significance earned a grade C+ recommendation. A grade C recommendation was given to those interventions where an appropriate outcome was measured in a study that met the inclusion criteria but no clinically important difference and no statistical significance were shown. Evidence from one or more RCTs of a statistically significant, benefit favoring the control group (<0%: favors controls) resulted in a grade D recommendation. Details on this grading system were published in the Philadelphia Panel methodology article.11
Scales demonstrated to be valid and responsive to change are required to support a positive recommendation (A or B). Outcomes not supported in the scientific literature by an existing validation study but providing useful information in studies—such as morning stiffness duration and palm-to-pulp measurement of finger joint ROM—are insufficient to warrant a grade A or B recommendation.17,18,25,26
|
Reviewing the Guidelines
|
|---|
The guidelines were sent to the external experts for review. To judge clinical usefulness, the 20 positive recommendations also were sent to 5 practitioners for feedback. Practitioners were selected from clinical settings in the Ottawa and Toronto regions and were a physical therapist, an occupational therapist, a physiatrist, a family physician, and a rheumatologist, all of whom were currently working with patients with RA. Practitioners were asked 4 questions for each guideline: whether the recommendation was clear, whether the practitioners agreed with the recommendation, whether they felt that the literature search on therapeutic exercises and intensity of rehabilitation was relevant and complete, and whether the results of the trials in the guidelines were interpreted according to the practitioners' understanding of the data. Results of this survey are shown in the "Results" section.
|
Results
|
|---|
Literature Search
The literature search identified 2,280 potential articles on therapeutic exercises for several rheumatic conditions. Ninety of these articles were initially considered potentially relevant based on the selection criteria checklist for RA only. Sixteen of these articles relating to therapeutic exercises met the selection criteria and were included.27–43 One of the 16 studies had a follow-up study, so we have counted these 2 studies as one (Tab. 2, Appendix 1). The other 74 trials44–117 were excluded from the final selection for various reasons (Tab. 3). For manual therapy, 862 articles were identified. Four of those articles were initially considered potentially relevant, but none were ultimately included118–121 (Tab. 4).
Therapeutic Exercises
The clinical practice guidelines for therapeutic exercises are shown in Appendix 3.
Summary of trials.
Sixteen trials (n=661 patients) evaluated different types of therapeutic exercises for RA affecting joints of the upper and lower extremities. All trials compared these exercises with a control, but the trials examined different kinds of exercise: (1) shoulder functional strengthening (n=28),35 (2) hand functional strengthening (n=41),32 (3) knee functional strengthening (n=35),36 (4) whole-body functional strengthening (n=312),28–31,33,38–41,43 (5) whole-body, low-intensity functional strengthening (group) that directly compared exercises with a home instruction program (n=100),42 (6) physical activity compared with bed rest (n=145),27,34,37 (7) whole-body, low-intensity (individualized) exercises versus written instructions received by a control group for a home exercise program (n=100),42 (8) whole-body, high-intensity (group) exercises versus written instruction for a home exercise program (n=100),42 and (9) whole-body, low-intensity (group) versus whole-body, high-intensity (group) exercises (n=100).42 Six included trials were RCTs,30,36,37,41–43 and 11 trials were CCTs27–29,31–35,38–40 (Appendix 1). We used the Jadad scale to decide whether a study was an RCT or a CCT.11
In all trials, 2 main types of therapeutic exercises were prescribed: (1) muscle-specific functional strengthening exercises that included isometric, concentric, eccentric, and isokinetic resistance exercises and (2) whole-body functional strengthening programs that included general fitness and aerobic conditioning. The programs' durations ranged from 1 week to 6 months, the treatment schedule varied from 1 to 14 times a week, and the length of each exercise session ranged from 30 minutes to 1 hour (Appendix 1). Therapeutic exercises varied also in their extent of supervision (ie, supervised versus not supervised, group versus individual) and in their level of intensity (ie, low versus high).
Efficacy.
Appendix 1 includes information on the intensity, frequency, and total duration of the exercises, which varied from study to study.
For shoulder functional strengthening versus control (one CCT, n=28),35 no statistically significant difference or clinically important benefit was observed at 2 months for relieving pain or improving ADL and ROM in patients with chronic RA, functional class I or II, and shoulder pain (Fig. 1). No other outcomes were reported.
Hand functional strengthening versus control (one CCT, n=41)32 showed no clinically important benefit for patients with chronic RA, functional class II or III, in improving ROM of the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint (results not shown) and grip force at 12 weeks (Fig. 2). However, hand functional strengthening did show a statistically significant difference (WMD=–3.10°, 95% conference interval [CI]=–5.93° to –0.27°) with no clinically important benefit for PIP joint extension at 12 weeks only (Fig. 2).
View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2. Hand functional strengthening versus control. ROM=range of motion, PIP=proximal interphalangeal joint.
|
|
A clinically important benefit (41% relative difference) was shown in knee functional strengthening versus control (one RCT, n=35)36 for pain in patients who had seropositive or seronegative inflammatory RA and required long-term medication at 6 weeks (Tab. 5). No clinically important benefit was shown for function; no statistically significant difference was observed in any outcome measured after 6 weeks (Fig. 3).
For whole-body functional strengthening programs versus control (3 RCTs and 6 CCTs, n=312),28–31,33,38–40,43 clinically important benefits were observed for swollen joints at 2 months (29% relative difference on the Lansbury's joint index),39 number of sick leaves after 8 years (43%),39 and quadriceps femoris muscle torque after 8 years (26%)39 (Tabs. 6 and 7, Figs. 4a
–c) in studies with patients who had RA of functional class I, II, or III. Quadriceps femoris muscle torque (WMD=5.20 N·m, 95% CI=1.29–9.11 N·m) and length of sick leave (relative risk=–0.44 day, 95% CI=0.24–0.81 day) after 8 years obtained statistically significant values (Figs. 4b–c). No clinically or statistically significant benefit was found for any of the other outcomes measured (Tab. 6, Figs. 4a–c).
View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 4a. Whole-body functional strengthening versus control. Joint count=number of actively inflamed joints. Kirsteins 1991-1 is the study reported by Kirsteins et al.33 Kirsteins 1991-2 was a follow-up study by Kirsteins et al with exactly the same information reported for Kirsteins 1991-1.
|
|
View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 4b. Whole-body functional strengthening versus control. HAQ=Health Assessment Questionnaire, VAS=visual analog scale, ROM=range of motion. Kirsteins 1991-1 is the study reported by Kirsteins et al.33 Kirsteins 1991-2 was a follow-up study by Kirsteins et al with exactly the same information reported for Kirsteins 1991-1.
|
|
No clinically important benefit was calculated for global patient (patient's assessment of overall disease activity or impairment) at 3 and 6 months, function measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) at 3 and 6 months, pain measured on a visual analog scale (VAS) at 3 and 6 months, or number of swollen joints at 3 and 6 months in patients with RA, chronic stage (Tab. 8, Fig. 5) for whole-body, low-intensity functional strengthening exercise programs in supervised groups versus instructions for a home-based program (one RCT, n=100).42
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 8. Whole-Body Low-Intensity Functional Strengthening (Group): Dynamic Exercises Versus Instructions for Home Exercisesa
|
|
View larger version (33K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 5. Whole-body low-intensity functional strengthening exercises (group): exercises versus instructions for home exercises. HAQ=Health Assessment Questionnaire, VAS=visual analog scale.
|
|
For physical activity compared with bed rest (considered by the panel to be a control), one RCT37 demonstrated a significant difference favoring physical activity (WMD=8.15, 95% CI=4.25–12.05) for improving grip force (17% relative difference) at 3 months in patients with chronic RA (Tab. 9, Fig. 6a). Results for pain relief, function, ROM, and tender or swollen joints or time to walk 15.24 m (50 ft) favored the group receiving bed rest in the same RCT37 and in 2 CCTs27,34 featuring the same type of patients (n=145) (Tabs. 9 and 10, Figs. 6a–b).
For low-intensity, whole-body functional exercises (individualized) versus a control group whose participants received instruction in a home-based program (one RCT, n=100),42 statistically significant differences and clinically important benefits were obtained for change in function at 12 weeks (function=statistically significant at 12 weeks) (30% relative difference; WMD=–0.19, 95% CI=–0.36 to –0.02 [12 weeks]; WMD=–0.08, 95% CI=–0.36 to 0.2 [24 weeks]). Clinically important benefits were obtained for pain relief at 12 weeks (40% relative difference) (Tab. 11, Figs. 7a–b). However, no clinically important effects were observed for change in tender joints, change in muscle force, change in swollen joints, or change in joint mobility at 3 and 6 months (Tab. 11, Figs. 7a–b). Patients had RA in a chronic stage.
View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 7a. Low-intensity exercises (individualized) versus control (written instructions for home exercises).
|
|
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 7b. Low-intensity exercises (individualized) versus control (written instructions for home exercises).
|
|
Whole-body, high-intensity exercises (group) versus control as described above (one RCT, n=100)42 demonstrated no clinically important benefit for pain relief, muscle force, swollen/tender joints, joint mobility, or improvement in function (HAQ) at 3 and 6 months in patients with chronic RA (Tab. 12, Figs. 8a–b).
View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 8a. High-intensity exercises versus control (written instructions for home exercises). VAS=visual analog scale.
|
|
View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 8b. High-intensity exercises versus control (written instructions for home exercises). HAQ=Health Assessment Questionnaire.
|
|
In the same RCT (n=100),42 low-intensity supervised exercises (group) were compared with high-intensity exercises (group) and showed statistically significant differences and clinically important benefits for pain relief at 24 weeks (21% relative difference; WMD=1.30 cm on a 10-cm VAS, 95% CI=0.20–2.40 cm). Function only showed clinically important benefits at 12 weeks (HAQ; 21% relative difference; WMD=0, 95% CI=–0.21 to 0.21). No clinically important effects were shown for muscle force, swollen/tender joints, or joint mobility at 3 and 6 months for patients with RA in a chronic stage (Tab. 13, Figs. 9a–b).
View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 9a. Low-intensity exercises (group) versus high-intensity exercises (group). VAS=visual analog scale, ROM=range of motion.
|
|
View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 9b. Low-intensity exercises (group) versus high-intensity exercises (group). HAQ=Health Assessment Questionnaire.
|
|
Strength of published evidence compared with other guidelines.
Good evidence (level I, RCT) exists that therapeutic exercises, including functional strengthening and low- or high-intensity exercises, relieve pain and improve overall function in patients with RA. The strength of evidence has been graded by the Ontario Program for Optimal Therapeutics,122 which reported good-quality evidence related to therapeutic exercises (see Appendixes 4 and 5 for previous clinical practice guidelines on therapeutic exercises for RA and for shoulder pain).123–127
Clinical recommendations compared with other guidelines.
The Ottawa Panel concluded that good evidence exists (grade A for pain, function, and grip force; grade B for sick leave and lower-limb muscle force; grade C+ for swollen joints) that therapeutic exercises similar to those mentioned above, including functional strengthening and low- or high-intensity exercises, should be included as an intervention for patients with RA. Therapeutic exercises reduce pain while improving periarticular muscle force, aerobic capacity, and joint mobility (Appendix 4). This recommendation is in concordance with all other existing guidelines122–125 and with 2 protocols.128,129
Practitioners' response to Ottawa Panel guidelines.
All practitioners surveyed agreed with the recommendations for therapeutic exercises. Two practitioners found the recommendations clear, while one practitioner was confused as to which intervention was effective. The Ottawa Panel responded that interventions with grades A, B, and C+ are effective depending on the specific outcome, and the summaries of the guidelines (see "Clinical Practice Guidelines") were rewritten to clarify this issue. The decision aid available on the University of Ottawa Web site (see below for more details) contributes to the clarity of the clinical application of the individual guideline.
Manual Therapy
Evidence with acceptable research design, interventions, group comparisons, or outcomes could not be identified to guide the development of recommendations for manual therapy. To our knowledge, no EBCPGs exist on manual therapy for RA conditions.
|
Discussion
|
|---|
Top
Introduction
Methods
