Functional consultation and exercises improve grip strength in osteoarthritis of the hand – a randomised controlled trial

Table 3 Effect of intervention: differences within the groups

	Combined intervention difference (FU - BL) (mean (SD))	RC difference (FU - BL) (mean (SD))	p value
Grip strength (Vigorimeter), dominant hand, bar	0.03 (0.11)	−0.03 (0.13)	0.001
Grip strength (Vigorimeter), non-dominant hand, bar	0.01 (0.10)	−0.03 (0.13)	0.002
Self-reported pain on a LS^ab	−1.35 (2.38)	−0.88 (2.12)	0.339
Self-reported satisfaction with treatment on a LS^ab	−3.50 (3.37)	− 0.92 (2.95)	0.002
Self-reported health status on a LS^ab	−0.04 (2.00)	−0.44 (2.20)	0.291
JT Subtest 3, dominant hand	−0.55 (1.79)	−0.47 (2.65)	0.193
JT Subtest 3, non-dominant hand	−0.41 (1.96)	0.19 (2.85)	0.010
JT Subtest 7, dominant hand	−0.32 (1.01)	−0.06 (1.30)	0.134
JT Subtest 7, non-dominant hand	−0.39 (1.12)	0.33 (1.27)	0.000
AUSCAN^b	−1.55 (4.95)	−0.63 (4.12)	0.316

Bonferroni adjustment 0.05/10 = 0.005. Mean change - 95% CI - p-value
AUSCAN Australian/Canadian Hand Osteoarthritis Index, BL baseline, FU follow up, JT Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test, RC routine care
p values set in italics indicate statistical significance
^aLS = on a Likert scale from 0 to 10
^bInformation on both hands is shown due to how the test/questionnaire is administered

ISSN: 1478-6362