Background The new concepts of health assessment based on the WHO’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) require the increased use of patient self-rated outcome measurement. There is an extensive body of literature to support the concept that self-rating is far more valid than ‘objective’ parameters such as x-ray findings, range of motion etc. While the value of joint-specific assessment is obvious in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the need for comprehensive outcome parameters may seem to be less important. We present an exemplary study which compares generic, comprehensive assessment with condition-specific assessment.
Methods In a cross-sectional catamnesis study, the outcomes of patients with RA and posttraumatic (PT) elbows were compared 11 years after total elbow arthroplasty using generic and specific self-rating instruments.
Results Compared to the scores recorded for the 20 PT patients, the 59 RA patients achieved mean scores of 105.6% on the Short Form 36 (SF-36) Mental Component Summary, 82.5% on the Patient Related Elbow Evaluation (PREE) function, 69.5% on the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) function, and 60.2% on the SF-36 physical functioning (a higher score means better health).
Conclusions The elbow-specific PREE revealed little functional deficits for RA compared with PT, the arm-specific DASH showed moderate, and the generic, comprehensive SF-36 demonstrated large functional deficits, whereas psychosocial health was comparable for RA and PT. Post-interventional outcomes may be similar when focusing on a specific condition or joint. Functional deficits and holistic health can only be captured by comprehensive measurement when dealing with systemic polyarticular affection like RA.
