TY - JOUR T1 - Variation in the definition of the examination of joints in rheumatoid arthritis: Results of a survey conducted on a group of Colombian rheumatologists JO - Revista Colombiana de Reumatología (English Edition) T2 - AU - Medina-Velásquez,Yimy F. AU - Narváez,María Isabel AU - Atuesta,Javier AU - Díaz,Eybar AU - Motta,Orfa AU - Quintana López,Gerardo AU - Rondón Herrera,Federico SN - 24444405 M3 - 10.1016/j.rcreue.2020.09.002 DO - 10.1016/j.rcreue.2020.09.002 UR - https://www.elsevier.es/en-revista-revista-colombiana-reumatologia-english-edition--474-articulo-variation-in-definition-examination-joints-S2444440520300601 AB - IntroductionIn the follow-up of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, the physical examination of the joints in order to determine the number of painful and swollen joints is the cornerstone for determining activity. The objective of this study was to find out the opinion of a group of rheumatologists as regards the examination of joints of patients with RA to define the swollen or painful joint. At the same time an evaluation was made on the variation in the joints examination between the participants. MethodsA questionnaire was administered to a group of rheumatologists in order to determine general issues and examining each of the joints, as well as concepts of definitions of pain and inflammation in the joints. ResultsThe majority of the participants (78%) stated that all aspects were important, such as evaluating passive joint mobilisation, pain to palpation, and spontaneous pain. Passive mobility without having pain or swollen joint tenderness was said to be important by 53.8% of the participants, and 62.6% agreed with observing the pressure exerted by the examiner until the nail bed of the finger started to turn pale. As regards touching the margin of joint to determine swelling, 55% agreed, and 14.3% were not sure. Synovial effusion, fluctuation, and the alteration in the range of motion to define inflammation in the examination of joint were important for 47.2% of the examiners. Almost three-quarters agreed with the temporomandibular, acromioclavicular, sternoclavicular, shoulder and ankle joint technique. It was obvious that few were in accordance with the technique in the hip joint. When asked about more than one technique in some joints such as the MCF (57.1%) and mid tarsal (45%) joints, there was a decrease in the percentage of those who agreed with one of the 2 techniques. DiscussionApparently, there is no standard joint assessment method, since there were different opinions in the techniques proposed. This could be critical since examination of joints is the basis of the clinimetric examination in RA. A significant percentage of the group did not agree or were unsure of some components of the examination. This could lead to a variation in the concepts and a misclassification of patients in order to determine the activity of RA. This would also have an impact on the T2T or treat to target strategy. ConclusionThere was a wide variation in opinions about the concepts related to the examination of joints, such as defining swollen or painful joints in patients suffering RA. This requires a process of standardisation as the best recommended alternative. ER -