The aim of this multi-centred, cohort, prospective, observational study was to evaluate the clinical application of the canine osteoarthritis staging tool (COAST), in dogs affected by osteoarthritis (OA). In all dogs, a COAST stage was obtained based on the Liverpool Osteoarthritis in Dogs (LOAD) score and a complete orthopaedic and radiographic examination. The severity of OA (COAST stage) was scored as 1 (preclinical), 2 (mild), 3 (moderate), and 4 (severe). These scores were compared with the overall subjective opinion of experienced orthopaedic surgeons who examined the dogs (Clinical Opinion). Data were analysed with descriptive statistic, multiple regression analysis, chi-square and Bland-Altman tests (P < 0.05). In total, 362 evaluations were performed in 202 dogs. Clinical Opinion had a greater proportion of stage 1 and 2 cases compared to COAST (P < 0.0001). The proportion of stage 4 cases was higher in COAST compared to Clinical Opinion (P < 0.0001). The proportions of Stage 3 cases were similar in the two evaluation systems. COAST had a strong correlation (r = 0.79; P < 0.01) with Clinical Opinion. Overall, the two evaluation systems exhibited strong agreement (mean bias 0.51). Stages 1 and 2 had weaker agreement (mean bias 1.04 and 0.75, respectively), than stage 3 and stage 4 (mean bias 0.46 and 0.0, respectively).

Observational study of the clinical value of the canine osteoarthritis staging tool

Stabile M.;Lacitignola L.;
2022-01-01

Abstract

The aim of this multi-centred, cohort, prospective, observational study was to evaluate the clinical application of the canine osteoarthritis staging tool (COAST), in dogs affected by osteoarthritis (OA). In all dogs, a COAST stage was obtained based on the Liverpool Osteoarthritis in Dogs (LOAD) score and a complete orthopaedic and radiographic examination. The severity of OA (COAST stage) was scored as 1 (preclinical), 2 (mild), 3 (moderate), and 4 (severe). These scores were compared with the overall subjective opinion of experienced orthopaedic surgeons who examined the dogs (Clinical Opinion). Data were analysed with descriptive statistic, multiple regression analysis, chi-square and Bland-Altman tests (P < 0.05). In total, 362 evaluations were performed in 202 dogs. Clinical Opinion had a greater proportion of stage 1 and 2 cases compared to COAST (P < 0.0001). The proportion of stage 4 cases was higher in COAST compared to Clinical Opinion (P < 0.0001). The proportions of Stage 3 cases were similar in the two evaluation systems. COAST had a strong correlation (r = 0.79; P < 0.01) with Clinical Opinion. Overall, the two evaluation systems exhibited strong agreement (mean bias 0.51). Stages 1 and 2 had weaker agreement (mean bias 1.04 and 0.75, respectively), than stage 3 and stage 4 (mean bias 0.46 and 0.0, respectively).
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
1-s2.0-S1090023322000478-main.pdf

non disponibili

Descrizione: articolo principale
Tipologia: Documento in Versione Editoriale
Licenza: Non specificato
Dimensione 2.4 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2.4 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11586/407917
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 2
  • Scopus 3
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
social impact