HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lamb, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lamb, M. Related Collections Therapeutic Exercise Rheumatoid Arthritis Evidence-Based Practice Practice Guidelines Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Ottawa Panel Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Therapeutic Exercises in the Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis in Adults

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

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Target Population Literature Search Study Inclusion/Exclusion... Rehabilitation Interventions... Outcomes Statistical Analysis Reviewing the Guidelines Results Discussion Implications for Practice Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 References

 
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

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Target Population Literature Search Study Inclusion/Exclusion... Rehabilitation Interventions... Outcomes Statistical Analysis Reviewing the Guidelines Results Discussion Implications for Practice Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 References

 
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

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Target Population Literature Search Study Inclusion/Exclusion... Rehabilitation Interventions... Outcomes Statistical Analysis Reviewing the Guidelines Results Discussion Implications for Practice Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 References

 
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

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Target Population Literature Search Study Inclusion/Exclusion... Rehabilitation Interventions... Outcomes Statistical Analysis Reviewing the Guidelines Results Discussion Implications for Practice Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 References

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

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Target Population Literature Search Study Inclusion/Exclusion... Rehabilitation Interventions... Outcomes Statistical Analysis Reviewing the Guidelines Results Discussion Implications for Practice Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 References

 
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

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Target Population Literature Search Study Inclusion/Exclusion... Rehabilitation Interventions... Outcomes Statistical Analysis Reviewing the Guidelines Results Discussion Implications for Practice Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 References

 
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

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Target Population Literature Search Study Inclusion/Exclusion... Rehabilitation Interventions... Outcomes Statistical Analysis Reviewing the Guidelines Results Discussion Implications for Practice Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 References

 
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:

1. 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;
   
2. abilities and disabilities: pain reduction, muscle force, range of motion (ROM), postural status, and duration of morning stiffness; and
   
3. 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

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Target Population Literature Search Study Inclusion/Exclusion... Rehabilitation Interventions... Outcomes Statistical Analysis Reviewing the Guidelines Results Discussion Implications for Practice Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 References

 
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.

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

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Target Population Literature Search Study Inclusion/Exclusion... Rehabilitation Interventions... Outcomes Statistical Analysis Reviewing the Guidelines Results Discussion Implications for Practice Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 References

 
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

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Target Population Literature Search Study Inclusion/Exclusion... Rehabilitation Interventions... Outcomes Statistical Analysis Reviewing the Guidelines Results Discussion Implications for Practice Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 References

 
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 trials^44–117 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 included^118–121 (Tab. 4).

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 CCTs^{27–29,31–35,38–40} (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.

View larger version (13K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Knee functional strengthening versus control. HAQ=Health Assessment Questionnaire.

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.

View larger version (22K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 4c. Whole-body functional strengthening versus control.

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.

View larger version (25K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 6a. Bed rest versus physical activity.

View larger version (16K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 6b. Bed rest versus physical activity.

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).

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.

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.

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 guidelines^122–125 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 Abstract Introduction Methods Target Population Literature Search Study Inclusion/Exclusion... Rehabilitation Interventions... Outcomes Statistical Analysis Reviewing the Guidelines Results Discussion Implications for Practice Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 References

 
From this extensive systematic review, numerous EBCPGs (6 with grade A, B, and C+ recommendations) have been developed for therapeutic exercises for RA, including strengthening exercises and whole-body exercises, with an emphasis on intensity of the exercise program. One or more CCTs have shown that these interventions provide clinically important benefits. More evidence, however, is needed to determine the efficacy of therapeutic exercises and manual therapy in the management of RA (9 primary grade C recommendations for therapeutic exercises and one "insufficient data" for manual therapy). Although no harmful side effects were reported in the original studies, the results of our review seem to suggest some potentially negative effects of intervention. For example, physical activity as compared with bedrest may have negative effects on outcomes such as pain, function, ROM, number of tender or swollen joints, and time to walk 15.24 m (50 ft). The effects of high-intensity exercise on pain also raise concern.

However, as with all such reviews, this review has its limitations. The effectiveness of conservative management of patients with RA is a complex issue,⁷ and rehabilitation specialists often use concomitant interventions in their daily practice.¹³⁰ For example, interventions such as cryotherapy, wax bath, and electrotherapy are used for pain relief or as treatment preparation before exercise intervention. The use of a single intervention does not reflect the complexity of the global approach adopted by rehabilitation specialists in real-life clinical situations.

Furthermore, the efficacy of therapeutic exercises for RA is thought to be influenced by a number of factors,⁷ including biological, psychosocial, and environmental health indicators.^7,131 Therefore, a multidimensional clinical evaluation is recommended in arthritis management.^122,132 However, it was not possible to examine the effect of possible concurrent therapies such as medication intake and thermotherapy on the effectiveness of the interventions examined.¹³³

The Ottawa Panel EBCPGs for the management of RA generally concur with previous and relatively recent EBCPGs for RA,^122–125 shown in Appendix 4, and with 2 protocols.^128,129 The Philadelphia Panel EBCPGs, on whose methodology those of the Ottawa Panel were based, were developed based on a systematic grading of the evidence determined by an expert panel. In both cases, the evidence was derived from new systematic reviews and meta-analyses conducted by the OMG using The Cochrane Collaboration methodology. The Ottawa Panel comprised several practitioners who verified the guidelines' applicability and ease of use for practicing clinicians. This additional procedure provides credibility for rehabilitation specialists who intend to use these EBCPGs in their daily practice.

The EBCPGs developed by the Ottawa Panel have some potential limitations due to methodological weaknesses. Although the included trials were selected based on well-established inclusion and exclusion criteria, selection was performed by occupational therapist and physical therapist students. Potential omission of studies due to reviewer inexperience could have led to selection bias. Consultation with a third reviewer (LB) and the use of the panel of senior clinical experts may have compensated in part for this potential methodological flaw. The EBCPGs also are limited by the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the included studies. For example, some reports of RCTs^{31–33,36,37,40,41} did not specify if the study sample included individuals in acute or chronic stages of RA. Additionally, some studies lacked details about the specific characteristics of the exercise intervention such as intensity. This lack of specificity¹⁸ could be problematic for future clinical implementation of the guidelines, especially for the whole-body functional strengthening recommendation.

The OMG, however, made sure that the development of the draft EBCPGs prepared for the expert members was in concordance with Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) criteria.¹³⁴ Using AGREE (www.agreecollaboration.org), 2 trained physical therapists assessed the Ottawa Panel EBCPGs for RA. This tool consists of 6 dimensions measured on a 4-point scale, where 1 represents "strongly agree" and 4 represents "strongly disagree." The dimensions are: (1) purpose, defined as overall objectives that described the potential impact of a guideline on society and populations of patients; (2) stakeholder involvement, defined as the extent to which the guideline represents the views of its targed users; (3) rigor of development, which deals with the process used to gather and synthesize the evidence and with the methods to formulate the recommendations and to update them; (4) clarity and presentation, which refers to the language and format of the guideline; (5) applicability, which relates to the likely organizational, behavioral, and cost implications of applying the guideline; and (6) editorial independence, which refers to the independence of the recommendations and acknowledgment of possible conflict of interest from the guideline development group. The EBCPGs obtained a very high score for dimensions 1 (purpose), 2 (stakeholder involvement), 4 (clarity), and 6 (editorial independence), with lower scores for dimensions 3 (rigor of development) and 5 (applicability). On the University of Ottawa School of Rehabilitation Sciences Web page (http://www.health.uottawa.ca/EBCpg/english/main.htm) precise results are currently available, and decision aids with detailed clinical application will soon be available. The rigor of development was low because of poor reporting of side effects and risks, which were not reported in the primary trials and therefore not included in the EBCPGs. The applicability was low, particularly in identifying potential organizational barriers, cost implications, and methods of applying and monitoring the guidelines. After publication, the Ottawa Panel is planning to implement these guidelines in the Arthritis Rehabilitation and Education Program of The Arthritis Society of Ontario.

Therapeutic Exercises

The Ottawa Panel concluded that therapeutic exercises, including specific functional strengthening and whole-body functional strengthening, are a beneficial intervention for patients with RA. The benefit may vary, however, according to disease acuity and the time frame during which the outcomes are measured. Clinical benefits are recognized for pain relief, upper-limb (grip) and lower-limb force, and functional status. Other benefits include improved overall function and, of particular importance due to its socioeconomic impact, decreased number of sick leaves. In the presence of an inflammatory disease such as RA, a low-intensity exercise program favors the reduction of pain and an improved functional status as compared with a high-intensity program, which may exacerbate the inflammatory process and the risk of damage to the affected joints. This evidence was not reproduced in noninflammatory diseases such as OA.¹³⁵ Physiological changes in plasma opioid concentrations support the reduction of pain observed in patients with RA after exercise.^136–138

The recommendation for therapeutic exercises is in concordance with all existing guidelines^122–125 and 2 protocols.^128,129 To our knowledge, all systematic reviews¹¹² and all existing descriptive literature^{16,99,133,139–142} support this recommendation. Some subtle variation exists, though, depending on the outcome studied.

Although the Ottawa Panel EBCPGs are based mainly on RCTs, further research investigating the efficacy of therapeutic exercises for patients with RA requires trials of higher methodological quality. Indeed, a large number of studies failed to meet the inclusion criteria. The overall methodological quality of the included studies underlying the EBCPGs was relatively weak¹⁵ due to the difficulty in masking patients and evaluators for this kind of intervention. This methodolological weakness observed in the included RCTs may have caused an overestimation of effect. The impossibility of truly masking patients is a common problem in trials of rehabilitation interventions.¹⁴³ Additionally, although we found many RCTs on therapeutic exercises for RA, the authors did not always report the characteristics of the intervention, the characteristics of the sample, and the stage of the disease in a standardized way. Some outcomes studied in the primary trials may not be clinically plausible. For example, it is unclear how therapeutic exercise alone could lead to improvement in joint swelling. To improve methodological quality, future RCTs should use the Morin Theoretical Framework¹⁸ and the CONSORT Model¹⁴⁴ to report not only the characteristics of clinical application, of the sample, and of the disease, but also of the dropouts, the method of randomization, and the use of validated measurements.

Investigators in future studies examining the benefits of therapeutic exercises in the management of patients with RA will need to be more explicit in specifying the characteristics of the implemented exercises and program, including aquatics programs^38,106,107; the intensity of the exercise; and the progression. In addition, to provide a more judicious evaluation of the benefits, patient-specific information concerning physical impairment, functional goals, and standardized outcome measures¹⁷ must be provided.¹⁴⁰

Manual Therapy

No studies of manual therapy with acceptable research designs were identified.

	Implications for Practice

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Target Population Literature Search Study Inclusion/Exclusion... Rehabilitation Interventions... Outcomes Statistical Analysis Reviewing the Guidelines Results Discussion Implications for Practice Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 References

 
The Ottawa Panel found evidence to recommend and support the use of therapeutic exercises, especially knee functional strengthening, whole-body functional strengthening, general physical activity, and whole-body, low-intensity exercises, for the management of RA. Conversely, evidence is lacking at present as to whether the use of shoulder and hand strengthening exercises and whole-body, high-intensity exercises or manual therapy should be included or excluded in the daily practice of physical rehabilitation for RA management. It is important to note that the recommendations outlined here are limited by methodological considerations such as the quality of studies in the literature, including the generally poorly reported descriptions of therapeutic exercise programs, and the outcomes in those studies.

	Appendix 1

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Target Population Literature Search Study Inclusion/Exclusion... Rehabilitation Interventions... Outcomes Statistical Analysis Reviewing the Guidelines Results Discussion Implications for Practice Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 References

 

View larger version (286K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Appendix 1. Description of Included Trialsa

	Appendix 2

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Target Population Literature Search Study Inclusion/Exclusion... Rehabilitation Interventions... Outcomes Statistical Analysis Reviewing the Guidelines Results Discussion Implications for Practice Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 References

View larger version (27K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Appendix 2. Literature Search Strategy (Part of a Global Search)

	Appendix 3

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Target Population Literature Search Study Inclusion/Exclusion... Rehabilitation Interventions... Outcomes Statistical Analysis Reviewing the Guidelines Results Discussion Implications for Practice Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 References

View larger version (92K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Appendix 3. Clinical Practice Guidelines

	Appendix 4

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Target Population Literature Search Study Inclusion/Exclusion... Rehabilitation Interventions... Outcomes Statistical Analysis Reviewing the Guidelines Results Discussion Implications for Practice Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 References

View larger version (24K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Appendix 4. Previous Clinical Practice Guidelines on Therapeutic Exercises for Rheumatoid Arthritisa

	Appendix 5

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Target Population Literature Search Study Inclusion/Exclusion... Rehabilitation Interventions... Outcomes Statistical Analysis Reviewing the Guidelines Results Discussion Implications for Practice Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 References

View larger version (15K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Appendix 5. Previous Clinical Practice Guidelines on Therapeutic Exercises for Shoulder Paina

	Footnotes

 
This study was financially supported by The Arthritis Society (Canada); the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (Canada); the Career Scientist Salary Support Program, University of Ottawa for Dr Brosseau; the University Research Chair Program for Dr Brosseau; and the Ministry of Human Resources, Summer Students Program (Canada).

Acknowledgments: The Ottawa Panel is indebted to Ms Catherine Lamothe, Ms Shannon Rees, Ms Judith Robitaille, Ms Lucie Lavigne, Mr Shaun Cleaver, Mr Guillaume Léonard, Ms Marie-Andrée Ouimet, Mr Martin Campbell, Ms Isabelle Blais, Ms Simon Barsoum, and Ms Karin Phillips for their technical support and help in data extraction.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Target Population Literature Search Study Inclusion/Exclusion... Rehabilitation Interventions... Outcomes Statistical Analysis Reviewing the Guidelines Results Discussion Implications for Practice Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 References

 

1. Kobelt G, Eberhardt K, Johansson B. Economic consequences of the progression of rheumatoid arthritis in Sweden. Arthritis Rheum.1999; 42:347–356.[Web of Science][Medline]
2. Badley EM, Tennant A. Calderdale Health and Disablement Survey. Manchester, United Kingdom: Arthritis and Rheumatism Council for Research;1988 .
3. Abdel-Nasser AM, Rasker JJ, Valkenburg JA. Epidemiological and clinical aspects relating to the variability of rheumatoid arthritis. Semin Arthritis Rheum.1997; 27:123–140.[Web of Science][Medline]
4. Alarcon GS. Predictive factors in rheumatoid arthritis. Am J Med.1997; 103:19S–24S.[Web of Science][Medline]
5. Glazier R. Managing early presentation of rheumatoid arthritis. Can Fam Physician.1996; 42:913–922.[Web of Science][Medline]
6. Helewa A, Walker JM. Epidemiology and economics of arthritis. In: Walker JM, Helewa A, eds. Physical Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: WB Saunders Co;2004 :9–18.
7. Yelin E, Meenan R, Nevitt M, Epstein W. Work disability in rheumatoid arthritis: effects of disease, social and work factors. Ann Intern Med.1980; 93:551–556.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Mann WC, Hunnen D, Tomita M. Assistive devices used by home-based elderly persons with arthritis. Am J Occup Ther.1995; 49:810–820.[Web of Science][Medline]
9. Woolf SH. Practice guidelines: a new reality in medicine, I: recent developments. Arch Intern Med.1990; 150:1811–1818.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Grimshaw JM, Freemantle N, Wallace S, et al. Developing and implementing clinical practice guidelines. Qual Health Care.1995; 4:55–64.[Medline]
11. Philadelphia Panel Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines on Selected Rehabilitation Interventions: Overview and Methodology. Phys Ther.2001; 81:1629–1640.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Arnett FC, Edworthy SM, Bloch DA, et al. The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum.1988; 31:315–324.[Web of Science][Medline]
13. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ.1994; 309(6964):1286–1291.
14. Haynes R, Wilczynski N, McKibbon KA, Walker CJ. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound studies in MEDLINE. J Am Med Inform Assoc.1994; 1:447–458.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials.1996; 17:1–12.[Web of Science][Medline]
16. Clarke AK. Effectiveness of rehabilitation in arthritis. Clin Rehabil.1999; 13(suppl 1):51–62.
17. Anonymous. OMERACT: Conference on Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials. J Rheumatol.1993; 20:526–591.
18. Morin M, Brosseau L, Quirion-DeGrardi C. A theoretical framework on low-level laser therapy (classes I, II, and III) application for the treatment of OA and RA [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Canadian Physiotherapy Association Annual Congress; May 31, 1986; Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Physiotherapy Association;1996 :1.
19. Canadian Society for the ICIDH (International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps). The Handicap Creation Process: How to Use the Conceptual Model—Examples. Lac Saint-Charles, Quebec, Canada: ICIDH International Network;1991 .
20. Anonymous. "Erythrocyte sedimentation rate." Online medical dictionary. Available at: http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?action=Home&query=. Accessed June 4;2003 .
21. McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press;1996 .
22. Mulrow CD, Oxman A, eds. How to Conduct a Cochrane Systematic Review [San Antonio Cochrane Collaboration, version 3.0.2]. Oxford, United Kingdom: The Cochrane Library, The Cochrane Collaboration;1997 .
23. Anonymous. The Cochrane reviewers' handbook glossary. Available at: http://www.cochrane.dk/cochrane/handbook/hbookCOCHRANE_REVIEWERS_HANDBOOK_GLOS.htm. Accessed June 4, 2003.
24. Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Solomon P, et al. Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris Questionnaire. Phys Ther.1996; 76:359–368.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25. American Society of Hand Therapists: Clinical Assessment Recommendations. 2nd ed. Chicago, Ill: American Society of Hand Therapists;1992 .
26. Lineker SC, Badley EM, Charles C, et al. Defining morning stiffness in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol.1999; 26:1052–1057.[Web of Science][Medline]
27. Alexander GJM, Hortas C, Bacon PA. Bed rest, activity and the inflammation of rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol.1983; 22:134–140.[Medline]
28. Ekblom B, Lövgren O, Alderin M, et al. Effect of short-term physical training on patients with rheumatoid arthritis: I. Scand J Rheumatol.1975; 4:80–86.[Web of Science][Medline]
29. Ekblom B, Lövgren O, Alderin M, et al. Effect of short-term physical training on patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a six-month follow-up study. Scand J Rheumatol.1975; 4:87–91.[Web of Science][Medline]
30. Häkkinen A, Häkkinen K. Effects of strength training on neuromuscular function and disease activity in patients with recent-onset inflammatory arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol.1994; 23:237–242.[Web of Science][Medline]
31. Harkcom TM, Lampman RM, Figley Banwell B, Castor WC. Therapeutic value of graded aerobic exercise training in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum.1985; 28:32–39.[Web of Science][Medline]
32. Hoenig H, Groff G, Pratt K, et al. A randomized controlled trial of home exercise on the rheumatoid hand. J Rheumatol.1993; 20:785–789.[Web of Science][Medline]
33. Kirsteins AE, Dietz F, Hwang S-M.. Evaluating the safety and potential use of a weight-bearing exercise: tai-chi chuan for rheumatoid arthritis patients. Am J Phys Med Rehabil.1991; 70:136–141.[Web of Science][Medline]
34. Lee P, Kennedy AC, Anderson J, Buchanan WW. Benefits of hospitalization in rheumatoid arthritis. Q J Med.1974; 43(170):205–214.
35. Mannerkorpi K, Bjelle A. Evaluation of a home training programme to improve shoulder function in RA patients. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice.1994; 10:69–76.
36. McMeeken J, Stillman B, Story I, Kent P. The effects of knee extensor and flexor muscle training on the timed-up-and-go test in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis. Physiother Res Int.1999; 4:55–67.[Medline]
37. Mills JA, Pinals RS, Ropes MW, et al. Value of bed rest in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med.1971; 284:453–458.[Web of Science][Medline]
38. Minor MA, Hewett JE. Physical fitness and work capacity in women with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res.1995; 8:146–154.[Web of Science][Medline]
39. Nordemar R, Ekblom B, Zachrisson L, Lundqvist K. Physical training in rheumatoid arthritis: a controlled long-term study. Scand J Rheumatol.1981; 10:17–23.[Web of Science][Medline]
40. Noreau L, Martineau H, Roy L, Belzile M. Effects of a modified dance-based exercise on cardiorespiratory fitness, psychological state and health status of persons with rheumatoid arthritis. Am J Phys Med Rehabil.1995; 74:19–27.[Web of Science][Medline]
41. Rintala P, Kettunen H, McCubbin JA. Effects of water exercises program for individuals with rheumatoid arthritis. Sports Medicine, Training, and Rehabilitation.1996; 7:31–38.
42. van den Ende CHM, Hazes JMW, le Cessie S, et al. Comparison of high and low intensity training in well controlled rheumatoid arthritis: results of a randomised clinical trial. Ann Rheum Dis.1996; 55:798–805.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
43. Van Deusen J, Harlowe D. The efficacy of the ROM dance program for adults with rheumatoid arthritis. Am J Occup Ther.1987; 41:90–95.[Web of Science][Medline]
44. Ahern M, Nicholls E, Simionato E, et al. Clinical and psychological effects of hydrotherapy in rheumatic diseases. Clin Rehabil.1995; 9:204–212.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
45. Andersson SI, Ekdahl C. Dynamic and static physical training in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: application of a self-appraisal and coping model. Disabil Rehabil.1996; 18:469–475.[Web of Science][Medline]
46. Banwell B, Lampman RM, Cabral A, et al. A comparison of aerobic vs flexibility training in rheumatoid arthritis [abstract]. Arthritis Rheum.1984; 27:S130.
47. Barraclough D, Alderman WW, Popert AJ. Rehabilitation of non-walkers in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatol Rehabil.1976; 15:287–291.[Medline]
48. Baslund B, Lyngberg K, Anderson V, et al. Effect of 8 weeks of bicycle training on the immune system of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Appl Physiol.1993; 75:1691–1695.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
49. Basmajian JV. Therapeutic exercise in the management of rheumatic diseases. J Rheumatol.1987; 14(suppl 15):22–25.
50. Beals CA, Lampman RM, Figley-Banwell B, et al. Measurement of exercise tolerance in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol.1985; 12:458–461.[Web of Science][Medline]
51. Beaupré LA, Davies DM, Jones CA, Cinats JG. Exercise combined with continuous passive motion or slider board therapy compared with exercise only: a randomized controlled trial of patients following total knee arthroplasty. Phys Ther.2001; 81:1029–1037.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
52. Boström C, Harns-Ringdahl K, Karreskog H, Nordemar R. Effects of static and dynamic shoulder rotator exercises in women with rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol.1998; 27:281–290.[Web of Science][Medline]
53. Brighton SW, Lubbe JE, Van Der Merwe CA. The effect of a long-term exercise programme on the rheumatoid hand. Br J Rheumatol.1993; 32:392–395.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
54. D'Lima DD, Colwell CW, Morris BA, et al. The effects of preoperative exercise on total knee replacement outcomes. Clin Orthop.1996; 326:174–182.[Medline]
55. Daltroy LH, Robb-Nicholson C, Iversen MD, et al. Effectiveness of minimally supervised home aerobic training in patients with systemic rheumatic diseases. Br J Rheumatol.1995; 34:1064–1069.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
56. Dellhag B, Wollersjö I, Bjelle A. Effect of active hand exercise and wax bath treatment in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Arthritis Care Res.1992; 5:87–92.[Medline]
57. Ekblom B. Short- and long-term physical training in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Clin Res.1982; 14(suppl 34):109–110.
58. Ekblom B, Lövgren O, Alderin M, et al. Physical performance in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol.1974; 3:121–125.[Web of Science][Medline]
59. Ekdahl C, Broman G. Muscle strength, endurance, and aerobic capacity in rheumatoid arthritis: a comparative study with healthy subjects. Ann Rheum Dis.1992; 51:35–40.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
60. Ekdahl C, Andersson SI, Moritz U, Svensson B. Dynamic versus static training in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol.1990; 19:17–26.[Web of Science][Medline]
61. Häkkinen A, Mälkiä E, Häkkinen K, et al. Effects of detraining subsequent to strength training on neuromuscular function in patients with inflammatory arthritis. Br J Rheumatol.1997; 36:1075–1081.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
62. Häkkinen A, Sokka T, Kotamie A, et al. Dynamic strength training in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol.1999; 26:1257–1263.[Web of Science][Medline]
63. Hansen TM, Hansen G, Laggaard AM, Rasmussen JO. Long-term physical training in rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized trial with different training programs and blinded observers. Scand J Rheumatol.1993; 22:107–112.[Web of Science][Medline]
64. Harris R, Copp EP. Immobilization of the knee joint in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis.1962; 21:353–359.[Free Full Text]
65. Hart LE, Goldsmith CH, Churchill EM, Tugwell P. A randomized controlled trial to assess hydrotherapy in the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis [abstract]. Arthritis Rheum.1994; 37:S416.
66. Haug J, Wood LT. Efficacy of neuromuscular stimulation of the quadriceps femoris during continuous passive motion following total knee arthroplasty. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.1988; 69:423–424.[Web of Science][Medline]
67. Helewa A, Bombardier C, Goldsmith CH, et al. Cost-effectiveness of inpatient and intensive outpatient treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum.1989; 32:1505–1514.[Web of Science][Medline]
68. Hsieh LF, Didenko B, Schumacher HR Jr, Torg JS. Isokinetic and isometric testing of knee musculature in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with mild knee involvement. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.1987; 68:294–297.[Web of Science][Medline]
69. Karten I, Lee M, McEwen C. Rheumatoid arthritis: five-year study of rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.1973; 54:120–128.[Web of Science][Medline]
70. Kelly M. Continuous immobilization of joints in rheumatoid arthritis. Med J Aust.1953; 2:95–99.[Medline]
71. Komatireddy GR, Leitch RW, Cella K, et al. Efficacy of low load resistive muscle training in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: functional class II and III. J Rheumatol.1997; 24:1531–1539.[Web of Science][Medline]
72. Lee M, Wright V, Longton EB. Periarthritis of the shoulder: a controlled trial of physiotherapy. Physiotherapy.1973; 59:312–315.[Medline]
73. Lineker SC, Horn A. Physical management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis following lower extremity joint surgery. Curr Opin Orthop.1996; 6:10–14.[Medline]
74. Lineker SC, Bell MJ, Wilkins AL, et al. Improvements following short term community based physical therapy are maintained at 1 year in people with moderate to severe RA [abstract]. Arthritis Rheum.1997; 40:S336.
75. London NJ, Brown M, Newman RJ. Continuous passive motion: evaluation of a new low-cost machine. Physiotherapy.1999; 85:610–612.
76. Lyngberg K, Danneskiold-Samsoë B, Halskov O. The effects of physical training on patients with rheumatoid arthritis: changes in disease activity, muscle strength and aerobic capacity. Clin Exp Rheumatol.1988; 6:253–260.[Web of Science][Medline]
77. Lyngberg KK, Harreby M, Bentzen H, et al. Elderly rheumatoid arthritis patients on steroid treatment tolerate physical training without an increase in disease activity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.1994; 75:1189–1195.[Web of Science][Medline]
78. Lyngberg KK, Ramsing BU, Nawrocki A, et al. Safe and effective isokinetic knee extension training in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum.1994; 37:623–628.[Web of Science][Medline]
79. Machover S, Sapecky AJ. Effect of isometric exercise on the quadriceps muscle in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.1966; 47:737–741.[Medline]
80. Maloney WJ, Schurman DJ, Hangen D, et al. The influence of continuous passive motion on outcome in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop.1990; 256:162–168.[Medline]
81. McCubbin JA. Resistance exercise training for persons with arthritis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am.1990; 16:931–942.[Web of Science][Medline]
82. Minor MA. Physical activity and management of arthritis. Ann Behav Med.1991; 13:117–124.
83. Minor MA, Brown JD. Exercise maintenance of persons with arthritis after participation in a class experience. Health Educ Q.1993; 20:83–95.[Web of Science][Medline]
84. Minor MA, Hewett JE, Webel RR, et al. Exercise tolerance and disease related measures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol.1988; 15:905–911.[Web of Science][Medline]
85. Minor MA, Hewett JE, Webel RR, et al. Efficacy of physical conditioning exercise in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum.1989; 32:1396–1405.[Web of Science][Medline]
86. Neuberger GB, Press AN, Lindsley HB, et al. Effects of exercise on fatigue, aerobic fitness and disease activity measures in persons with rheumatoid arthritis. Res Nurs Health.1997; 20:195–204.[Medline]
87. Nicholson LC, Daltroy LH, Larson MG, et al. Evaluation of a controlled trial of home aerobic training in SLE and RA [abstract]. Arthritis Rheum.1975; 9(suppl):S199.
88. Nitz JC, Luparia L. The use of EMG biofeedback in quadriceps strengthening exercise for rheumatoid arthritis patients: a clinical trial. Aust J Physiother.1983; 29:127–132.
89. Nordesjö LO, Nordgren B, Wigren A, Kolstad K. Isometric strength and endurance in patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthrosis in the knee joints. Scand J Rheumatol.1983; 12:152–156.[Web of Science][Medline]
90. Nordström DCE, Konttinen YT, Solovieva S, et al. In- and out-patient rehabilitation in rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol.1996; 25:200–206.[Web of Science][Medline]
91. Partridge REH, Duthie JJR. Controlled trial of the effect of complete immobilization of the joints in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis.1963; 22:91–99.[Free Full Text]
92. Perlman SG, Connell K, Alberti J, et al. Exercise and problem-solving education program for rheumatoid arthritis [abstract]. Arthritis Rheum.1985; 28(suppl):S148.
93. Petri M, Dobrow R, Neiman R, et al. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the treatment of the painful shoulder. Arthritis Rheum.1987; 30:1040–1045.[Web of Science][Medline]
94. Rall LC, Meydani SN, Kehayais JJ, et al. The effect of progressive resistance training in rheumatoid arthritis: increased strength without changes in energy balance or body composition. Arthritis Rheum.1996; 39:415–426.[Web of Science][Medline]
95. Raspe HH, Deck R, Mattussek S. The outcome of traditional or comprehensive outpatient care for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Z Rheumatol.1992; 51:61–66.[Web of Science][Medline]
96. Romness DW, Rand JA. The role of continuous passive motion following total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop.1988; 226:34–37.[Medline]
97. Sanford-Smith SS, MacKay-Lyons M, Nunes-Clement S. Therapeutic benefit of aquaerobics for individuals with rheumatoid arthritis. Physiother Can.1998; 50:40–46.
98. Scholten C, Brodowicz T, Graninger W, et al. Persistent functional and social benefit 5 years after a multidisciplinary arthritis training program. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.1999; 80:1282–1287.[Web of Science][Medline]
99. Semble EL, Loeser RF, Wise CM. Therapeutic exercise for rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. Semin Arthritis Rheum.1990; 20:32–40.[Web of Science][Medline]
100. Simon L, Blotman F. Exercise therapy and hydrotherapy in the treatment of the rheumatic diseases. Clin Rheum Dis.1981; 7:337–347.
101. Smith RD, Polley HF. Rest therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. Mayo Clin Proc.1978; 53:141–145.[Web of Science][Medline]
102. Stenström CH. Home exercise in rheumatoid arthritis functional class II: goal setting versus pain attention. J Rheumatol.1994; 21:627–631.[Web of Science][Medline]
103. Stenström CH, Arge B, Sundbom A. Dynamic training versus relaxation training as home exercise for patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Scand J Rheumatol.1996; 25:28–33.[Web of Science][Medline]
104. Stenström CH, Arge B, Sundbom A. Home exercise and compliance in inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a prospective clinical trial. J Rheumatol.1997; 24:470–476.[Web of Science][Medline]
105. Stenström CH, Lindell B, Swanberg E, et al. Intensive dynamic training in water for rheumatoid arthritis functional class II: a long-term study of effects. Scand J Rheumatol.1991; 20:358–365.[Web of Science][Medline]
106. Suomi R, Koceja DM. Postural sway characteristics in women with lower extremity arthritis before and after an aquatic exercise intervention. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.2000; 81:780–785.[Web of Science][Medline]
107. Suomi R, Lindauer S. Effectiveness of arthritis foundation aquatic program on strength and range of motion in women with arthritis. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity.1997; 5:341–351.
108. Suwalska M. Importance of physical training of rheumatic patients. Ann Clin Res.1982; 34(suppl):107–109.
109. Tegelberg A, Kopp S. Short-term effect of physical training on temporomandibular joint disorders in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. Acta Ondotologica Scandinavica.1988; 46:49–56.
110. Tegelberg A, Kopp S. A 3-year follow-up of temporomandibular disorders in rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. Acta Ondotol Scand.1996; 54:14–18.
111. Templeton MS, Booth DL, O'Kelly WD. Effects of aquatic therapy on joint flexibility and functional ability in subjects with rheumatic disease. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther.1996; 23:376–381.[Web of Science][Medline]
112. van den Ende CHM, Vlieland TPMV, Munneke M, Hazes JMW. Dynamic exercise therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review. Br J Rheumatol.1998; 37:677–687.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
113. van den Ende CMH, Breedveld FC, Le Cessie S, et al. Effect of intensive exercise on patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised clinical trial. Ann Rheum Dis.2000; 59:615–621.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
114. Van Deusen J, Harlowe D. One-year follow-up results of ROM dance research. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research.1988; 8:52–54.
115. Waggoner CD, LeLieuvre RB. A method to increase compliance to exercise regimens in rheumatoid arthritis patients. J Behav Med.1981; 4:191–201.[Medline]
116. Wessel J. Comparison of concentric and eccentric training in persons with rheumatoid arthritis. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation.1993; 7:39–40.
117. Westby MD, Wade JJP, Rangno KK, Berkowitz J. A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of an exercise program in women with rheumatoid arthritis taking low dose prednizone. J Rheumatol.2000; 27:1674–1680.[Web of Science][Medline]
118. Deyle GD, Henerson NE, Matekel RL, et al. Effectiveness of manual physical therapy and exercise in osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomised controlled trial. Ann Intern Med.2000; 132:173–181.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
119. Dhondt W, Willaeys T, Verbruggen LA, et al. Pain threshold in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and effect of manual oscillations. Scand J Rheumatol.1999; 28:88–93.[Web of Science][Medline]
120. Fox JL, Poss R. The role of manipulation following total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am.1981; 63:357–362.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
121. Kauppi M, Leppanen L, Heikkila S, et al. Active conservative treatment of atlantoaxial subluxation in rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol.1998; 37:417–420.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
122. Ontario Program for Optimal Therapeutics. Ontario Treatment Guidelines for Osteoarthritis, Rheumatoid Arthritis and Acute Musculoskeletal Injury. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Musculoskeletal Therapeutics Review Panel;2000 .
123. American College of Rheumatology Ad Hoc Committee on Clinical Guidelines. Guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum.1996; 39:713–722.[Medline]
124. Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Osteoarthritis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, and Juvenile Chronic Arthritis: Clinical Practice Guideline #2. Glenview, Ill: American Pain Society;2002 .
125. Yasuda L. Occupational Therapy Practice Guidelines for Adults With Rheumatoid Arthritis. The AOTA (American Occupational Therapy Association) Practice Guidelines Series. Bethesda, Md: American Occupational Therapy Association;2000 .
126. Philadelphia Panel Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines on Selected Rehabilitation Interventions for Shoulder Pain. Phys Ther.2001; 81:1719–1730.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
127. British Medical Journal Clinical Evidence: A Compendium of the Best Available Evidence for Effective Health Care. 9th ed. London, United Kingdom: BMJ Books;2003 .
128. Lineker S, Wood H, eds. Consultation and Rehabilitation Service. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: The Arthritis Society;1999 .
129. Kisner C, Allen Colby L. Therapeutic Exercise: Foundations and Techniques. 4th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: FA Davis Co;2002 .
130. Gam AN, Johannsen F. Ultrasound therapy in musculoskeletal disorders: a meta-analysis. Pain.1995; 63:85–91.[Web of Science][Medline]
131. Peck JR, Smith T, Ward JR, Milano R. Disability and depression in rheumatoid arthritis: a multi-trait, multi-method investigation. Arthritis Rheum.1989; 32:1100–1106.[Web of Science][Medline]
132. Task Force on Standards for Measurement in Physical Therapy. Standards for tests and measurements in physical therapy practice. Phys Ther.1991; 71:589–622.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
133. St-Clair WE, Polisson RP. Therapeutic approaches to the treatment of rheumatoid disease. Med Clin North Am.1986; 70:285–304.[Web of Science][Medline]
134. Cluzeau F, Littlejohns P. Appraising clinical practice guidelines in England and Wales: the development of a methodologic framework and its application to policy. Jt Comm J Qual Improv.1999; 25:514–521.[Medline]
135. Brosseau L, MacLeay L, Robinson VA, et al. Intensity of Exercise for Osteoarthritis: A Meta-Analysis. Oxford, United Kingdom: The Cochrane Library, The Cochrane Collaboration;2003 :2.
136. Jones CA, Rees JM, Dodds WN, Jayson MI. Changes in plasma opioid concentrations after physiotherapeutic exercises for arthritic patients. Neuropeptides.1985; 5(4–6):561–562.
137. Jonsdottir IH, Hoffmann P, Thoren P. Physical exercise, endogenous opioids and immune function. Acta Physiol Scand Suppl.1997; 640:47–50.[Medline]
138. Kangilaski J. Beta-endorphin levels in arthritis patients. JAMA.1981; 246:203.[Medline]
139. Dekker J, Mulder PH, Bijlsma JWJ, Oostendorp RAB. Exercise therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis: a review. Adv Behav Res Ther.1993; 15:211–238.
140. Westby MD. A health professional's guide to exercise prescription for people with arthritis: a review of aerobic fitness activities. Arthritis Care Res.2001; 45:501–511.[Web of Science]
141. Yttergerg SR, Mahowald ML, Krug HE. Exercise for arthritis. Baillieres Clin Rheumatol.1994; 8:161–189.[Web of Science][Medline]
142. Wright A, Sluka KA. Nonpharmacological treatments for musculoskeletal pain. Clin J Pain.2001; 17:33–46.[Web of Science][Medline]
143. Deyo RA, Walsh NE, Schoenfeld LS, Ramamurthy S. Can trials of physical treatments be blinded? The example of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for chronic pain. Am J Phys Med Rehabil.1990; 69:6–10.[Web of Science][Medline]
144. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med.2001; 134:657–662.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. L Schriger, D. G Altman, J. A Vetter, T. Heafner, and D. Moher Forest plots in reports of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study reviewing current practice Int. J. Epidemiol., January 28, 2010; (2010): dyp370v2 - dyp370. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Brosseau, G. A Wells, P. Tugwell, M. Egan, K. G Wilson, C.-J. Dubouloz, L. Casimiro, V. A Robinson, J. McGowan, A. Busch, et al. Ottawa Panel Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Strengthening Exercises in the Management of Fibromyalgia: Part 2 Physical Therapy, July 1, 2008; 88(7): 873 - 886. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Brosseau, G. A Wells, P. Tugwell, M. Egan, K. G Wilson, C.-J. Dubouloz, L. Casimiro, V. A Robinson, J. McGowan, A. Busch, et al. Ottawa Panel Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Aerobic Fitness Exercises in the Management of Fibromyalgia: Part 1 Physical Therapy, July 1, 2008; 88(7): 857 - 871. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. S. Metsios, A. Stavropoulos-Kalinoglou, J. J. C. S. Veldhuijzen van Zanten, G. J. Treharne, V. F. Panoulas, K. M. J. Douglas, Y. Koutedakis, and G. D. Kitas Rheumatoid arthritis, cardiovascular disease and physical exercise: a systematic review Rheumatology, March 1, 2008; 47(3): 239 - 248. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Christie, G. Jamtvedt, K. T. Dahm, R. H Moe, E. A Haavardsholm, and K. B. Hagen Effectiveness of Nonpharmacological and Nonsurgical Interventions for Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Overview of Systematic Reviews Physical Therapy, December 1, 2007; 87(12): 1697 - 1715. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. P. M. Vliet Vlieland Non-drug care for RA is the era of evidence-based practice approaching? Rheumatology, September 1, 2007; 46(9): 1397 - 1404. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B Combe, R Landewe, C Lukas, H D Bolosiu, F Breedveld, M Dougados, P Emery, G Ferraccioli, J M W Hazes, L Klareskog, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of early arthritis: report of a task force of the European Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutics (ESCISIT) Ann Rheum Dis, January 1, 2007; 66(1): 34 - 45. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Ottawa Panel Members, Ottawa Methods Group, L. Brosseau, G. A Wells, P. Tugwell, M. Egan, C.-J. Dubouloz, L. Casimiro, V. A Robinson, L. Pelland, et al. Ottawa Panel Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Therapeutic Exercises and Manual Therapy in the Management of Osteoarthritis Physical Therapy, September 1, 2005; 85(9): 907 - 971. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Ottawa Panel Members, Ottawa Methods Members, L. Brosseau, G. A Wells, P. Tugwell, M. Egan, C.-J. Dubouloz, L. Casimiro, V. A Robinson, L. Pelland, et al. Ottawa Panel Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Electrotherapy and Thermotherapy Interventions in the Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis in Adults Physical Therapy, November 1, 2004; 84(11): 1016 - 1043. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lamb, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lamb, M. Related Collections Therapeutic Exercise Rheumatoid Arthritis Evidence-Based Practice Practice Guidelines Social Bookmarking                      What's this?