OBJECTIVE: To investigate the postoperative efficacy of a supervised programme of neuromuscular exercise prior to hip or knee arthroplasty.

METHODS: In this assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial, we included 165 patients scheduled for hip or knee arthroplasty due to severe osteoarthritis (OA). An 8-week preoperative neuromuscular supervised exercise programme was delivered twice a week for 1 h as adjunct treatment to the standard arthroplasty procedure and compared with the standard arthroplasty procedure alone. The primary outcome was self-reported physical function measured on the activities of daily living (ADL) subscale in the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) and the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) questionnaires for patients with hip and knee OA, respectively. Primary endpoint was 3 months after surgery.

RESULTS: 165 patients randomised to the two groups were on average 67±8 years, 84 (51%) had hip OA and 92 (56%) were women. 153 patients (93%) underwent planned surgery and were evaluated postoperatively. There was no statistically significant difference in effects between hip or knee patients (p=0.7370). Three months postoperatively, no difference was found between groups for ADL (4.4, 95% CI -0.8 to 9.5) or pain (4.5, 95% CI -0.8 to 9.9). However, there was a statistically significant difference indicating an effect of exercise over the entire period (baseline to 3-months postoperatively) (p=0.0029).

CONCLUSIONS: Eight weeks of supervised neuromuscular exercise prior to total joint arthroplasty (TJA) of the hip or knee did not confer additional benefits 3 months postoperatively compared with TJA alone. However, the intervention group experienced a statistically significant short-term benefit in ADL and pain, suggesting an earlier onset of postoperative recovery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials NCT01003756.

AIMS: The Satisfaction with Daily Occupations (SDO) scale assesses satisfaction within the domains of work, leisure, domestic tasks, and self-care. The aim was to investigate the psychometric properties of the Danish version of the SDO when used with asylum seekers.

METHODS: The participants were 93 Danes without known ill health and 43 asylum seekers. They completed the SDO and rated their perceived health, activity level, and general satisfaction with daily occupations. Translation into Danish and back-translation into Swedish was made by professional interpreters.

RESULTS: Internal consistency was α = 0.75 for the Danish sample and α = 0.79 for the asylum seekers. The SDO distinguished between asylum seekers and the Danish sample, suggesting criterion validity. Concurrent validity, analysed against general satisfaction with daily occupations, was indicated for both samples. Discriminant validity was indicated against self-rated health for both samples and against activity level for the Danish sample. There was, however, a correlation of 0.65 between the SDO satisfaction score and activity level for the asylum seekers.

CONCLUSION: The SDO exhibited satisfactory internal consistency and criterion and concurrent validity. The findings regarding discriminant validity were somewhat inconclusive. The Danish SDO may be regarded as psychometrically sound but further psychometric testing is needed.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether study sponsor, chemical formulation, brand of glucosamine, and/or risk of bias explain observed inconsistencies in trials of glucosamine's efficacy for treating pain in osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS: A systematic review and stratified meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials was performed, and random-effects models were applied with inconsistency (I(2) ) and heterogeneity (tau(2) ) estimated using Review Manager and SAS, respectively. The major outcome was reduction of pain; the standardized mean difference (SMD [95% confidence interval (95% CI)]) served as effect size.

RESULTS: The inclusion criteria yielded 25 trials (3,458 patients). Glucosamine moderately reduced pain (SMD -0.51 [95% CI -0.72, -0.30]), although a high level of between-trial inconsistency was observed (I(2) = 88%). The single most important explanation (i.e., covariate) was brand, reducing heterogeneity by 41% (P = 0.00032). Twelve trials (1,437 patients) using the Rottapharm/Madaus product resulted in significant pain reduction (SMD -1.07 [95% CI -1.47, -0.67]), although a sensitivity analysis of 3 low risk of bias trials using the Rottapharm/Madaus product showed less promising results (SMD -0.27 [95% CI -0.43, -0.12]), which is only a small effect size. Thirteen trials (1,963 patients) using non-Rottapharm/Madaus products consistently failed to show a reduction in pain (SMD -0.11 [95% CI -0.46, 0.24]). The second most important explanation was overall risk of bias (reducing heterogeneity by 32%).

CONCLUSION: Most of the observed heterogeneity in glucosamine trials is explained by brand. Trials using the Rottapharm/Madaus glucosamine product had a superior outcome on pain in OA compared to other preparations of glucosamine. Large inconsistency was found, however. Low risk of bias trials, using the Rottapharm/Madaus product, revealed a small effect size.