Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28404610›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2017

Hand exercises for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an extended follow-up of the SARAH randomised controlled trial.

Esther Williamson, Christopher McConkey, Peter Heine, Sukhdeep Dosanjh, Mark Williams, Sarah E Lamb

Abstract readMulticenter StudyPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Exercise for rheumatoid arthritis of the hand.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Loss to Follow-up After Tendon Repair: Impact on Functional Recovery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Esther WilliamsonCentre for Rehabilitation Research, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Christopher McConkeyClinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Peter HeineCentre for Rehabilitation Research, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Sukhdeep DosanjhClinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Mark WilliamsDepartment of Sports and Health Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Sarah E LambCentre for Rehabilitation Research, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of Health 07/32/05
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe Stretching And strengthening for Rheumatoid Arthritis of the Hand (SARAH) randomised controlled trial evaluated the effectiveness of a hand exercise programme and demonstrated it was clinically effective and cost-effective at 12 months. The aim of this extended follow-up was to evaluate the effects of the SARAH programme beyond 12 months.

methodsUsing postal questionnaires, we collected the Michigan Hand Questionnaire hand function (primary outcome), activities of daily living and work subscales, pain troublesomeness, self-efficacy and health-related quality of life. All participants were asked how often they performed hand exercises for their rheumatoid arthritis. Mean difference in hand function scores were analysed by a linear model, adjusted for baseline score.

resultsTwo-thirds (n=328/490, 67%) of the original cohort provided data for the extended follow-up. The mean follow-up time was 26 months (range 19-40 months).There was no difference in change in hand function scores between the two groups at extended follow-up (mean difference (95% CI) 1.52 (-1.71 to 4.76)). However, exercise group participants were still significantly improved compared with baseline (p=0.0014) unlike the best practice usual care group (p=0.1122). Self-reported performance of hand exercises had reduced substantially.

conclusionsParticipants undertaking the SARAH exercise programme had improved hand function compared with baseline >2 years after randomisation. This was not the case for the control group. However, scores were no longer statistically different between the groups indicating the effect of the programme had diminished over time. This reduction in hand function compared with earlier follow-up points coincided with a reduction in self-reported performance of hand exercises. Further intervention to promote long-term adherence may be warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN89936343; Results.

Indexed as

AdultAgedArthritis, RheumatoidCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHandHumansMaleMiddle AgedMuscle Stretching ExercisesPatient ComplianceQuality of LifeSeverity of Illness IndexSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomAdheranceExerciseHand therapyRheumatoid Arthritis

Identifiers

PMID28404610
PMCPMC5775458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.