Search

Background: Treatment options for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) include pharmacological interventions, physical therapy treatments and balneotherapy., Aim: To evaluate the benefits and harms of balneotherapy in patients with RA., Design: A systematic review., Population: Studies were eligible if they were randomised controlled trials consisting of participants with definitive or classical RA., Methods: We searched various databases up to December 2014. Balneotherapy had to be the intervention under study, and had to be compared with another intervention or with no intervention. We considered pain, improvement, disability, tender joints, swollen joints and adverse events among the main outcome measures. We excluded studies when only laboratory variables were reported as outcome measures. Two review authors independently selected trials, performed data extraction and assessed risk of bias., Results: This review includes nine studies involving 579 participants. Most studies showed an unclear risk of bias in most domains. We found no statistically significant differences on pain or improvement between mudpacks versus placebo (1 study; N.=45; hand RA; very low level of evidence). As for the effectiveness of additional radon in carbon dioxide baths, we found no statistically significant differences between groups for all outcomes at three-month follow-up (2 studies; N.=194; low to moderate level of evidence). We noted some benefit of additional radon at six months in pain (moderate level of evidence). One study (N.=148) compared balneotherapy (seated immersion) versus hydrotherapy (exercises in water), land exercises or relaxation therapy. We found no statistically significant differences in pain or in physical disability (very low level of evidence) between groups. We found no statistically significant differences in pain intensity at eight weeks, but some benefit of mineral baths in overall improvement at eight weeks compared to Cyclosporin A (1 study; N.=57; low level of evidence)., Conclusion: Overall evidence is insufficient to show that balneotherapy is more effective than no treatment; that one type of bath is more effective than another or that one type of bath is more effective than exercise or relaxation therapy., Clinical Rehabilitation Impact: We were not able to assess any clinical relevant impact of balneotherapy over placebo, no treatment or other treatments.

Background: No cure for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is known at present, so treatment often focuses on management of symptoms such as pain, stiffness and mobility. Treatment options include pharmacological interventions, physical therapy treatments and balneotherapy. Balneotherapy is defined as bathing in natural mineral or thermal waters (e.g. mineral baths, sulphur baths, Dead Sea baths), using mudpacks or doing both. Despite its popularity, reported scientific evidence for the effectiveness or efficacy of balneotherapy is sparse. This review, which evaluates the effects of balneotherapy in patients with RA, is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003 and updated in 2008., Objectives: To perform a systematic review on the benefits and harms of balneotherapy in patients with RA in terms of pain, improvement, disability, tender joints, swollen joints and adverse events., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane 'Rehabilitation and Related Therapies' Field Register (to December 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2014, Issue 1), MEDLIINE (1950 to December 2014), EMBASE (1988 to December 2014), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to December 2014), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) (1985 to December 2014), PsycINFO (1806 to December 2014) and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). We applied no language restrictions; however, studies not reported in English, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, German or French are awaiting assessment. We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing and recently completed trials., Selection Criteria: Studies were eligible if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) consisting of participants with definitive or classical RA as defined by the American Rheumatism Association (ARA) criteria of 1958, the ARA/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria of 1988 or the ACR/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria of 2010, or by studies using the criteria of Steinbrocker.Balneotherapy had to be the intervention under study, and had to be compared with another intervention or with no intervention.The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International League Against Rheumatism (ILAR) determined in 1992 a core set of eight endpoints in clinical trials concerning patients with RA. We considered pain, improvement, disability, tender joints, swollen joints and adverse events among the main outcome measures. We excluded studies when only laboratory variables were reported as outcome measures., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected trials, performed data extraction and assessed risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus and, if necessary, by third party adjudication., Main Results: This review includes two new studies and a total of nine studies involving 579 participants. Unfortunately, most studies showed an unclear risk of bias in most domains. Four out of nine studies did not contribute to the analysis, as they presented no data.One study involving 45 participants with hand RA compared mudpacks versus placebo. We found no statistically significant differences in terms of pain on a 0 to 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.84 to 1.84), improvement (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.70) or number of swollen joints on a scale from 0 to 28 (MD 0.60, 95% CI -0.90 to 2.10) (very low level of evidence). We found a very low level of evidence of reduction in the number of tender joints on a scale from 0 to 28 (MD -4.60, 95% CI -8.72 to -0.48; 16% absolute difference). We reported no physical disability and presented no data on withdrawals due to adverse events or on serious adverse events.Two studies involving 194 participants with RA evaluated the effectiveness of additional radon in carbon dioxide baths. We found no statistically significant differences between groups for all outcomes at three-month follow-up (low to moderate level of evidence). We noted some benefit of additional radon at six months in terms of pain frequency (RR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.9; 31% reduction; improvement in one or more points (categories) on a 4-point scale; moderate level of evidence) and 9.6% reduction in pain intensity on a 0 to 100-mm VAS (MD 9.6 mm, 95% CI 1.6 to 17.6; moderate level of evidence). We also observed some benefit in one study including 60 participants in terms of improvement in one or more categories based on a 4-point scale (RR 2.3, 95% CI 1.1 to 4.7; 30% absolute difference; low level of evidence). Study authors did not report physical disability, tender joints, swollen joints, withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events.One study involving 148 participants with RA compared balneotherapy (seated immersion) versus hydrotherapy (exercises in water), land exercises or relaxation therapy. We found no statistically significant differences in pain on the McGill Questionnaire or in physical disability (very low level of evidence) between balneotherapy and the other interventions. No data on improvement, tender joints, swollen joints, withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events were presented.One study involving 57 participants with RA evaluated the effectiveness of mineral baths (balneotherapy) versus Cyclosporin A. We found no statistically significant differences in pain intensity on a 0 to 100-mm VAS (MD 9.64, 95% CI -1.66 to 20.94; low level of evidence) at 8 weeks (absolute difference 10%). We found some benefit of balneotherapy in overall improvement on a 5-point scale at eight weeks of 54% (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.83). We found no statistically significant differences (low level of evidence) in the number of swollen joints, but some benefit of Cyclosporin A in the number of tender joints (MD 8.9, 95% CI 3.8 to 14; very low level of evidence). Physical disability, withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events were not reported., Authors' Conclusions: Overall evidence is insufficient to show that balneotherapy is more effective than no treatment, that one type of bath is more effective than another or that one type of bath is more effective than mudpacks, exercise or relaxation therapy.

Introduction: Self-efficacy is one of the most powerful determinants of behaviour change. To increase effectiveness of joint protection (JP) education, it may be important to address perceptions of JP self-efficacy directly. The aim of this study was to develop a scale to measure JP self-efficacy (JP-SES) in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: Instrument development included item generation, construct validity, and reliability testing. Rasch analysis was applied to determine construct validity and the revised JP-SES was tested again to confirm validity and establish test-retest reliability and internal consistency., Results: A total of 46 items were generated by literature review, occupational therapists, and people with RA. After semi-structured interviews and field-testing with RA participants, a 26-item questionnaire draft was constructed and tested. Rasch analysis to determine construct validity reduced the JP-SES to 13 items with good overall fit values. Rasch analysis of confirmatory validity resulted in a final 10-item version of the JP-SES. Test-retest results supported the validity of the scale, with high internal consistency (α = 0.92) and good test-retest reliability (r(s) = 0.79; p < 0.001)., Conclusions: The JP-SES is a valid and reliable scale to assess perceived ability of people with RA to apply JP methods. The JP-SES could help stimulate the use of efficacy-enhancing methods in JP education.

Background: Deciding whether or not to perform a health behaviour is an active decision-making process which has an impact on current and future behaviour and can be influenced by the beliefs both of patients and their healthcare professionals. The aim of this study was to explore rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients' and occupational therapists' (OTs) perceptions of the benefits of and barriers to performing joint protection (JP)., Methods: A mixed methods design was used. Questionnaires applied a theoretical framework of key themes to assess the relevance of JP benefits and barriers both to people with RA and OTs. Focused interviews with people with RA then enabled data triangulation. Investigator triangulation was used to check the validity of data interpretation., Findings: Ten people with RA and nine OTs participated. From the questionnaires, both groups agreed that highly relevant key themes for JP benefits were physical well-being, potential benefit and personal control. By contrast, the three key themes for JP barriers - negative attitude of others, negative impact on others and taking time from other things - were relevant for the majority of the OTs but not patients. The interviews enabled an understanding of the meaning behind RA patients' ratings, particularly their differences from OTs. People with RA explained JP benefits, and disease acceptance had altered some initial barriers into perceived benefits over time., Conclusions: Emphasizing benefits and identifying individually relevant barriers could be an important communication strategy for OTs in understanding patients' rationale for whether or not to adopt JP methods., (Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objective: Joint protection (JP) is an important part of the treatment concept for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The Joint Protection Behavior Assessment short form (JPBA-S) assesses the use of hand JP methods by patients with RA while preparing a hot drink. The purpose of this study was to develop a German version of the JPBA-S (D-JPBA-S) and to test its validity and reliability., Methods: A manual was developed through consensus with 8 occupational therapist (OT) experts as the reference for assessing patients' JP behavior. Twenty-four patients with RA and 10 healthy individuals were videotaped while performing 10 tasks reflecting the activity of preparing instant coffee. Recordings were repeated after 3 months for test-retest analysis. One rater assessed all available patient recordings (n = 23, recorded twice) for test-retest reliability. The video recordings of 10 randomly selected patients and all healthy individuals were independently assessed for interrater reliability by 6 OTs who were explicitly asked to follow the manual. Rasch analysis was performed to test construct validity and transform ordinal raw data into interval data for reliability calculations., Results: Nine of the 10 tasks fit the Rasch model. The D-JPBA-S, consisting of 9 valid tasks, had an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.77 for interrater reliability and 0.71 for test-retest reliability., Conclusion: The D-JPBA-S provides a valid and reliable instrument for assessing JP behavior of patients with RA and can be used in German-speaking countries.

Objective: Osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) affect a large proportion of the population. Low level laser therapy (LLLT) was introduced as an alternative noninvasive treatment for RA and OA about 10 years ago, but its effectiveness is still controversial. We assessed the effectiveness of LLLT in the treatment of RA and OA., Methods: A systematic review was conducted, following an a priori protocol, according to the methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. Trials were identified by a literature search of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Only randomized controlled trials of LLLT for the treatment of patients with a clinical diagnosis of RA or OA were eligible. Thirteen trials were included, with 212 patients randomized to laser and 174 patients to placebo laser, and 68 patients received active laser on one hand and placebo on the opposite hand. Treatment duration ranged from 4 to 10 weeks. Followup was reported by only 2 trials for up to 3 months., Results: In patients with RA, relative to a separate control group, LLLT reduced pain by 70% relative to placebo and reduced morning stiffness by 27.5 min (95% CI -52.0 to -2.9), and increased tip to palm flexibility by 1.3 cm (95% CI -1.7 to -0.8). Other outcomes such as functional assessment, range of motion, and local swelling were not different between groups. There were no significant differences between subgroups based on LLLT dosage, wavelength, site of application, or treatment length. In RA, relative to a control group using the opposite hand, there was no difference between control and treatment hand, but all hands were improved in terms of pain relief and disease activity. For OA, a total of 197 patients were randomized. Pain was assessed by 3 trials. The pooled estimate (random effects) showed no effect on pain (standardized mean difference -0.2, 95% CI -1.0 to +0.6), but there was statistically significant heterogeneity (p > 0.05). Other outcomes of joint tenderness, joint mobility, and strength were not significant., Conclusion: LLLT should be considered for short term relief of pain and morning stiffness in RA, particularly since it has few side effects. For OA, the results are conflicting in different studies and may depend on the method of application and other features of the LLLT. Clinicians and researchers should consistently report the characteristics of the LLLT device and the application techniques. New trials on LLLT should make use of standardized, validated outcomes. Despite some positive findings, this metaanalysis lacked data on how effectiveness of LLLT is affected by 4 factors: wavelength, treatment duration of LLLT, dosage, and site of application over nerves instead of joints. There is a need to investigate the effects of these factors on effectiveness of LLLT for RA and OA in randomized controlled clinical trials.