ObjectiveOsteoarthritis (OA) is highly prevalent throughout the world, especially in the elderly population, and is strongly associated with patients’ frailty. However, little is known about the prevalence and treatment of OA in elderly patients in routine clinical care in Germany.Materials and methodsAs a part of Linking Patient-Reported Outcomes with CLAIms Data for Health Services Research in Rheumatology (PROCLAIR), a cross-sectional study using claims data from a large Germany statutory health insurance (BARMER) was conducted. We included people aged 60 years or older and assessed the prevalence of OA of the hip or knee, defined as having outpatient diagnoses (ICD: M16 or M17) in at least two quarters of 2014. The use of conservative treatment, including analgesics and physical therapy, and total joint replacement was studied. Analyses were stratified by age, sex, comorbidities, and level of care dependency defined by social law.ResultsA total of 595,754 patients (mean age: 74.9 years; 69.8% female) were diagnosed with OA (21.8%), with the highest prevalence in those between 80 and 89 years (31.0%) and in females compared to males (23.9% vs 18.3%). Prevalence decreased with increasing level of care dependency from 30.5% in patients with a low level (0/1) to 18.7% in the highest level of care dependency. A total of 63.4% of the patients with OA received analgesics, with higher use with increasing age. Physical therapy was prescribed to 43.1% of the patients, but use decreased with age. In all, 5.3% of the patients received total joint replacement in 2014.ConclusionThe lower frequency of coded OA with increasing level of care dependency may reflect underdiagnosis, and patients with many other medical problems seem to be at risk for inadequate recognition and treatment of their OA.

Background: Consensus-orientated Delphi studies are increasingly used in various areas of medical research using a variety of different rating scales and criteria for reaching consensus. We explored the influence of using three different rating scales and different consensus criteria on the results for reaching consensus and assessed the test-retest reliability of these scales within a study aimed at identification of global treatment goals for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods: We conducted a two-stage study consisting of two surveys and consecutively included patients scheduled for TKA from five German hospitals. Patients were asked to rate 19 potential treatment goals on different rating scales (threepoint, five-point, nine-point). Surveys were conducted within a 2 week period prior to TKA, order of questions (scales and treatment goals) was randomized. Results: Eighty patients (mean age 68 ± 10 years; 70% females) completed both surveys. Different rating scales (threepoint, five-point and nine-point rating scale) lead to different consensus despite moderate to high correlation between rating scales (r = 0.65 to 0.74). Final consensus was highly influenced by the choice of rating scale with 14 (three-point), 6 (five-point), 15 (nine-point) out of 19 treatment goals reaching the pre-defined 75% consensus threshold. The number of goals reaching consensus also highly varied between rating scales for other consensus thresholds. Overall, concordance differed between the three-point (percent agreement [p] = 88.5%, weighted kappa [k] = 0.63), five-point (p = 75.3%, k = 0.47) and nine-point scale (p = 67.8%, k = 0.78). Conclusion: This study provides evidence that consensus depends on the rating scale and consensus threshold within one population. The test-retest reliability of the three rating scales investigated differs substantially between individual treatment goals. This variation in reliability can become a potential source of bias in consensus studies. In our setting aimed at capturing patients' treatment goals for TKA, the three-point scale proves to be the most reasonable choice, as its translation into the clinical context is the most straightforward among the scales. Researchers conducting Delphi studies should be aware that final consensus is substantially influenced by the choice of rating scale and consensus criteria.

No abstract