Available via license: CC BY 2.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
BioMed Central
Page 1 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Open Access
Research article
A pragmatic randomised controlled trial of hydrotherapy and land
exercises on overall well being and quality of life in rheumatoid
arthritis
Lis Eversden
†1
, Fiona Maggs
2
, Peter Nightingale
3
and Paresh Jobanputra*
†2
Address:
1
Department of Physiotherapy, Selly Oak Hospital, University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Raddlebarn Road,
Birmingham, B29 6JD, UK,
2
Department of Rheumatology, Selly Oak Hospital, University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust,
Raddlebarn Road, Birmingham, B29 6JD, UK and
3
Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Facility, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University Hospital
Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, B15 2TH, UK
Email: Lis Eversden - liseversden@hotmail.com; Fiona Maggs - Fiona.Maggs@uhb.nhs.uk; Peter Nightingale - Peter.Nightingale@uhb.nhs.uk;
Paresh Jobanputra* - P.Jobanputra@bham.ac.uk
* Corresponding author †Equal contributors
Abstract
Background: Hydrotherapy is highly valued by people with rheumatoid arthritis yet few studies have compared the
benefits of exercises in heated water against exercises on land. In particular, data on quality of life is rarely reported. This
is especially important because patients treated with hydrotherapy often report an enhanced sense of well-being. We
report a randomised controlled trial in which we compared the effects of hydrotherapy with exercises on land on overall
response to treatment, physical function and quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Methods: One hundred and fifteen patients with RA were randomised to receive a weekly 30-minute session of
hydrotherapy or similar exercises on land for 6 weeks. Our primary outcome was a self-rated global impression of change
– a measure of treatment effect on a 7-point scale ranging from 1(very much worse) to 7 (very much better) assessed
immediately on completion of treatment. Secondary outcomes including EuroQol health related quality of life, EuroQol
health status valuation, HAQ, 10 metre walk time and pain scores were collected at baseline, after treatment and 3 months
later. Binary outcomes were analysed by Fisher's exact test and continuous variables by Wilcoxon or Mann-Whitney tests.
Results: Baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable. Significantly more patients treated with
hydrotherapy (40/46, 87%) were much better or very much better than the patients treated with land exercise (19/40,
47.5%), p < 0.001 Fisher's exact test. Eleven patients allocated land exercise failed to complete treatment compared with
4 patients allocated hydrotherapy (p = 0.09). Sensitivity analyses confirmed an advantage for hydrotherapy if we assumed
non-completers would all not have responded (response rates 70% versus 38%; p < 0.001) or if we assumed that non-
completers would have had the same response as completers (response rates 82% versus 55% p = 0.002). Ten metre walk
time improved after treatment in both cases (median pre-treatment time for both groups combined 10.9 seconds, post-
treatment 9.1 s, and 3 months later 9.6 s). There was however no difference between treatment groups. Similarly there
were no significant differences between groups in terms of changes to HAQ, EQ-5D utility score, EQ VAS and pain VAS.
Conclusion: Patients with RA treated with hydrotherapy are more likely to report feeling much better or very much
better than those treated with land exercises immediately on completion of the treatment programme. This perceived
benefit was not reflected by differences between groups in 10-metre walk times, functional scores, quality of life measures
and pain scores.
Published: 1 March 2007
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2007, 8:23 doi:10.1186/1471-2474-8-23
Received: 30 June 2006
Accepted: 1 March 2007
This article is available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/8/23
© 2007 Eversden et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0
),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2007, 8:23 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/8/23
Page 2 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)
Background
Hydrotherapy, defined as supervised exercise in warm
water, is valued highly by people with rheumatoid arthri-
tis and yet provision of hydrotherapy in Britain continues
to decline [1]. All forms of exercise improve function and
well-being in RA and concerns about disease exacerba-
tion, even with intensive exercises, have not been borne
out [2]. Indeed exercise is a key, and often ignored, risk
factor for cardiovascular disease: increased physical activ-
ity in people with arthritis promises an important non-
pharmacologic means of reducing cardiovascular disease
[3].
Immersion in warm water reduces load on painful joints,
promotes muscle relaxation and, with some fun, allows
exercise against water resistance. A small number of previ-
ous randomised trials have examined the benefits of bal-
neotherapy (bathing in warm water). All of these studies
had methodological flaws and few compared the effect of
exercises in warm water with exercises on land in RA [4,5].
Only one, a trial of hydrotherapy versus usual daily activ-
ities which included a total of forty six patients, assessed
changes in quality of life: Bilberg and colleagues [6] found
no difference in the physical component of the Short-
Form 36 between hydrotherapy treated subjects and con-
trols.
In this randomised controlled trial we set out to compare
individualised exercises whilst immersed in a heated pool
to similar exercises on land for their effect on overall
improvement in health, physical function and quality of
life in people with rheumatoid arthritis.
Methods
Participants
Men and women aged 18 years or older with RA (meeting
American College of Rheumatology criteria), in func-
tional classes I, II or III [7] and attending rheumatology
clinics at Selly Oak Hospital in Birmingham were invited
to participate either on referral for physiotherapy or by
invitation in clinics or by mail. For inclusion, participants
gave informed consent in writing and were required to
understand and follow simple instructions in English.
Patients needed to be on stable doses of disease modifying
anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for 6 weeks and NSAIDs
for 2 weeks before entry. Injections with corticosteroids in
the 4 weeks before study entry were not permitted but
drug changes and injections were permitted during the
study to reflect the pragmatic nature of our study. Data on
drug therapy was collected at baseline and when final
assessments were made.
Patients who had had surgery in the 3 months before
study entry or those who had surgery planned were
excluded. Other exclusions were patients who had
received physiotherapy or hydrotherapy in the 6 months
preceding entry: this was done to avoid possible carry-
over effects of previous therapy. Patients with known
chlorine sensitivity, an infected open wound, poorly con-
trolled epilepsy, hypertension, diabetes, incontinence of
faeces, and a fear of water precluding hydrotherapy were
excluded. Also excluded were: pregnant women; patients
with co-morbid conditions which, in the opinion of the
assessing physiotherapist, prevented safe use of hydro-
therapy; known carriers of methicillin resistant staphylo-
coccus aureus in the upper respiratory tract; and those
who weighed more than 102 kg. The latter because of the
safety procedures established for our pool.
A single senior physiotherapist assessed study eligibility in
all cases. The Research and Development and Ethics com-
mittees of University Hospital Birmingham NHS Founda-
tion Trust gave ethical approval for this study.
Randomisation
Patients were randomised to hydrotherapy or land exer-
cises using sealed opaque envelopes indicating treatment
allocation. Randomisation envelopes were prepared at
study inception and random number sequence was
obtained by flipping a virtual coin [8]. A research assistant
not involved in the conduct of the study randomised
patients, allocated treatment and collected key data.
Interventions
Participants, in groups, received either a weekly 30-
minute session of hydrotherapy (at 35°C) or land based
exercises for 6 weeks. Participants were asked to attend
weekly but, allowing for sickness and leave, were allowed
to default for up to three sessions as long as 6 sessions in
all were completed. Those defaulting more than 3 sessions
were considered to be treatment failures but were fol-
lowed up, if possible, to obtain study data. Written
instructions on home exercises were provided at the out-
set to all patients. Patients were not required to do exer-
cises between treatment sessions but could do so if they
chose. The physiotherapist who had assessed eligibility
supervised treatment in both groups, with support from
two other senior physiotherapists. A rolling treatment
programme was operated for convenience, therefore
group sizes varied between 1 to 4 for hydrotherapy and 1
to 6 for land exercises. The size of our hydrotherapy pool
only permitted treatment of 4 patients at any one time.
However group sizes in both treatment arms were compa-
rable.
The exercise content in each group was similar and exer-
cises were tailored to each individual's ability. Participants
warmed up, by mobilising and stretching. The core exer-
cises, repeated each week, focussed on joint mobility,
muscle strength and functional activities. The degree of
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2007, 8:23 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/8/23
Page 3 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)
difficulty was reviewed weekly to ensure each participant
made progress at their individual pace. A cool down phase
concluded each session. Functional limitations of partici-
pants were considered at all times.
Outcome measures
A research assistant blind to treatment allocation assessed
key outcome measures. The primary outcome was self-
rated overall effect of treatment, measured once; on the
day treatment was completed. This validated measure has
previously been used in clinical trials of exercise in fibro-
myalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome [9-11]. Effect of
treatment is measured as change on a 7-point scale rang-
ing from 1 (very much worse) to 7 (very much better).
Patients were asked: 'please indicate how you feel after
your treatment'. The outcome was dichotomised so that
participants scoring 6 (much better) or 7 were regarded as
responders and others as non-responders [10].
Secondary outcomes were collected at baseline, on the day
of the last treatment session and 3 months post treatment.
These included: pain, assessed on a 10 cm visual analogue
scale (VAS), where 0 cm represented no pain; physical
function assessed with the health assessment question-
naire (HAQ); ten metre walk speed, an outcome widely
used to assess lower limb function in neurology [12] and
piloted previously in our unit [13]; and a EuroQol-5D
(EQ-5D) valuation questionnaire comprising a self report
of health related quality of life (EQ-VAS) and a health sta-
tus valuation (EQ-5D index or utility score) [14,15].
Statistical considerations and analyses
Sixty patients were needed in each treatment group to
detect a 28% difference between the two groups in the pri-
mary outcome measure with a two-sided significance level
of 0.05, and a power of 80%, allowing for a 10% drop-out
rate. This estimate was based on a pilot study showing that
73% of patients receiving hydrotherapy experienced an
increased sense of well-being [13]. We assumed that
around 45% of patients with RA undertaking land exer-
cises would feel 'much better' or 'very much better' based
on trials of exercise in other conditions [11]. Binary out-
comes were analysed by Fisher's exact test and continuous
variables by Wilcoxon signed rank tests for within group
comparisons or by Mann-Whitney tests for between group
comparisons. Data analyses were done according to the
principles of intention to treat.
Results
Patient Characteristics and Disposition
Our goal was to recruit 60 patients into each of the two
treatment groups. However, recruitment was terminated
early because of a decision by University Hospital Bir-
mingham NHS Foundation Trust to close their hydrother-
apy facility although this closure was deferred for several
months to permit continuation of our study [1]. Three
hundred and seventy patients (107 males and 263
females) were invited to participate in the study by mail.
Others, an unknown number, were invited during routine
clinic contacts. At termination, 123 patients had been
assessed for eligibility, 8 were excluded and 115 ran-
domised. Reasons for exclusion are shown in Figure 1.
Fifty seven patients were allocated hydrotherapy. Data on
the primary outcome was available for 46 (81%) hydro-
therapy treated patients: two patients did not attend all
follow-up visits and this data was obtained by mail. Fifty
eight patients were allocated land exercises. Data on the
primary outcome was available for 40 (69%) patients: one
patient did not attend all follow-up visits and this data
was obtained by mail.
Baseline characteristics of patients in the two groups were
comparable (Tables 1 &2). Eleven patients allocated to
land exercise failed to attend for the entire treatment pro-
gramme compared with 4 patients allocated hydrotherapy
(p = 0.09). Notably, one patient withdrew immediately
from the study because he was allocated land exercises.
Primary outcome
Significantly more patients treated with hydrotherapy
(40/46, 87%) felt much better or very much better than
the patients treated with land exercise (19/40, 47.5%), p
< 0.001 Fisher's exact test. Because a greater number of
patients allocated land exercises failed to attend we tested
the robustness of our data by doing some sensitivity anal-
yses. First, we assumed that all non-completers would
have been non-responders: this gave a response rate for
hydrotherapy of 40/57 (70%) and for land 19/58 (33%),
p < 0.001 in favour of hydrotherapy. Second, we assumed
that non-completers would have had the same response
rate as completers and that this proportion would have
been the same for both treatment groups (null hypothe-
sis). Thus 47/57 (82%) of hydrotherapy patients and 32/
58 (55%) of land patients would have responded, p =
0.002. Finally, assuming that all non-completers in
hydrotherapy would have been non-responders (40/57,
70%) and that all non-completers in the land group
would have been responders (37/58, 64%), a rather
implausible assumption, showed that there was no signif-
icant difference between the groups, p = 0.59.
Secondary outcomes
Ten-metre walk time improved after treatment and gains
were maintained 3 months after treatment in both cases
(median pre-treatment time for both groups combined
10.9 seconds(s), post treatment 9.1 s and at 3 months post
treatment 9.6 s). There was no difference between treat-
ment groups (p = 0.551). Similarly, there were no signifi-
cant differences between groups in terms of changes to
HAQ, EQ-5D utility score, EQ VAS and pain VAS (Table
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2007, 8:23 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/8/23
Page 4 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)
2). Three months after treatment pain scores were signifi-
cantly increased compared with baseline values in both
treatment groups (Table 2). Also, 3 months post treat-
ment worsening of pain and of the self care domains of
EQ-5D was also seen (p = 0.029 and p = 0.02 respectively;
McNemar's test). In the domain of pain/discomfort 19/85
(22.4%) worsened by at least one category, 7 (8.2%)
improved and 59 (69.4%) stayed the same. For self care
23/85 (27.1%) worsened, 9 (10.6%) improved and 53
(62.4%) stayed the same.
Medication changes occurred commonly during the trial.
For example, at the final assessment, 3 months after com-
pletion of treatment, 10 (17.5%) patients treated with
hydrotherapy had changed or increased the dose of their
DMARD compared with 9 (15.5%) land patients; 4 (7%)
hydrotherapy patients decreased or ceased their DMARD
compared with 2 (3%) land; and 4 (7%) in both groups
had had steroid injections.
Discussion
We have shown that patients with RA undertaking exer-
cises in a heated pool are significantly more likely to feel
much better or very much better than patients doing sim-
ilar exercises on land. We demonstrated this using a tran-
sitional outcome measure assessed after 6 weeks of
Table 1: Characteristics of patients at baseline.
Characteristic Hydrotherapy
N = 57
Land Exercise
N = 58
Age (mean ± SD, years) 55.2 ± 13.3 56.1 ± 11.9
Female Sex 39 (68%) 42 (72%)
Disease Duration† (years) 10 (4–18) 8 (3–20)
On DMARD* 47 (82%) 50 (86%)
On oral corticosteroids 11 (19%) 10 (17%)
On NSAIDs 28 (49%) 32 (55%)
*DMARD includes TNF inhibitors but not corticosteroids.
† Values are medians with lower and upper quartiles in parentheses
Study outlineFigure 1
Study outline.
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2007, 8:23 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/8/23
Page 5 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)
Table 2: Secondary Outcomes†
Hydrotherapy Land Exercises
Outcome Measure Baseline
N = 57
Immediately Post Treatment
N = 44
3 mo. post treatment
N = 43
Baseline
N = 58
Immediately Post Treatment
N = 40
3 mo. Post treatment
N = 42
EQ-5D Utility 0.69 (0.52–0.80) 0.69 (0.59–0.78)
p = 0.61
0.62 (0.52–0.76)
p = 0.044
0.69 (0.59–0.76) 0.68 (0.59–0.79)
p = 0.57
0.66 (0.52–0.76)
p = 0.044
EQ-5D VAS (0–100) 70 (50–85) 73 (55–85)**
p = 0.57
70 (44–80)
p = 0.08
74 (60–86)* 77 (60–90)
p = 0.42
75 (51–88)***
p = 0.63
HAQ (0–3) 1.38 (0.69–2.00) 1.50 (1.06–1.84)
p = 0.09
1.63 (1.13–1.88)
p = 0.23
1.50 (0.88–2.00)* 1.44 (0.78–1.84)
p = 0.20
1.38 (0.84–1.91)
p = 0.77
Pain (100 mm VAS, 0 = no pain) 24 (10–50) 25.5 (11–41)
p = 0.40
35 (14–62)
p = 0.026
26.5 (14–51) 27.5 (15–58)
p = 0.22
42.5 (16–59)
p = 0.005
10 m walk time (seconds) 10.9 (7.9–12.8) 9.1 (7.2–10.7)
p < 0.001
10.0 (8.0–12.0)**
p = 0.011
10.2 (8.8–13.2) 8.8 (6.9–11.3)
p < 0.001
9.0 (7.7–11.3)
p < 0.001
† Values are medians with lower and upper quartiles in parentheses and p values for comparison with baseline
* n = 57 ** n = 42 *** n = 41
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2007, 8:23 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/8/23
Page 6 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)
exercises [10,11]. Patient reports of benefit were not
reflected by health status measures of pain, HAQ scores,
EQ-5D utility scores and self rated global health (EQ
VAS). This is surprising because previous studies, done to
validate EQ-5D utility and VAS scales, have shown these
measures to be highly responsive to self reported
improvement [16]. However measures such as HAQ may
be less responsive, particularly in studies of exercise in RA
[17]. The absence of benefit in health utility measures or
in self rated global health scores indicates that hydrother-
apy would not be judged cost effective because of the
additional resources needed for hydrotherapy. A formal
economic study of hydrotherapy for juvenile idiopathic
arthritis, based in part at our institution, also concluded
that hydrotherapy would not be cost-effective [18].
Indeed during the conduct of our trial our institution
decided to close the hydrotherapy facility.
Our data underscores concerns about the relevance of
health status measures such as EQ-5D to the personal per-
spectives of patients [19,20]. We assessed self reported
change in health on the day treatment was completed but
our primary outcome was not evaluated 3 months post
treatment. This was an important limitation of our study.
We believed, however, that it was important to capture the
direct impact of exercises since our pragmatic study design
did not restrict use of other interventions, including use of
corticosteroids during the study. Later assessment of our
primary outcome may have been confounded by recall
bias and other interventions in the weeks after completion
of exercises. Many patients changed their drug therapies or
received steroid injections especially in the 3 months post
treatment, although the proportions of patients changing
therapy were similar in the two groups. A pragmatic
design is important for aiding policy decisions about ther-
apeutic resources [21]. We felt this design was important
to assess the value of hydrotherapy in a realistic setting
since treatments in chronic arthritis are commonly used as
one component of a complex set of interventions.
Care was taken to ensure that the same therapist treated
both groups of patients as far as was practical and indeed
a majority of treatments in both arms were done by one
person. Use of different therapists could have led to
important differences in approach to patients' problems
or in outcomes because of differences in the abilities of
physiotherapists to motivate and heal patients. However,
we acknowledge that a conscious or subconscious prefer-
ence for one or other treatment by the treating therapist
may have influenced outcomes. In order to improve inter-
nal validity (reliability of the result) outcomes were
patient-centred and an independent assessor collected
outcomes. We also ensured that group sizes were similar
so that therapeutic benefits from being part of a group
were similar. It is known that, in addition to the physio-
logical and cardiovascular benefits of exercise, exercise
classes also provide opportunities for socialisation and
mutual support, and that both are important determi-
nants of continued exercise [22].
Failure to adhere to exercises is a common human failing
mirrored in people with arthritis [23]. Some suggest that
compliance with exercises in inflammatory arthritis is bet-
ter in those who report greater benefits of exercise[24] and
others that even short term interventions can have long
term beneficial effects [25]. Certainly both groups showed
a sustained improvement in walk times but pain scores
were increased 3 months after treatment in both groups.
Whether this reflected disease progression, greater pain
scores because of increased physical activity, or other fac-
tors, is unknown. Other studies of hydrotherapy and exer-
cise in arthritis either report improved pain [6] or no effect
of exercise on pain [2,18] or disease activity [17].
Conclusion
Our study clearly shows that RA patients who attend hos-
pital clinics are more likely to report feeling much better
or very much better if they are treated with hydrotherapy
than if they are treated with exercises on land. This benefit
was reported immediately after completing treatment.
Whether this gain is sufficient to justify provision of
hydrotherapy facilities in a hospital setting is debatable.
For ambulatory patients with arthritis provision of aquatic
exercise through community initiatives may be more
effective in terms of public health [26]. We cannot say
whether hydrotherapy offers advantages over other forms
of intensive rehabilitation to people with severe disability;
this remains to be explored.
Competing interests
The author(s) declare that they have no competing inter-
ests.
Authors' contributions
PJ and LE conceived, planned and secured funding for the
study. LE carried out and supervised treatments and
ensured that measurements of key outcomes were consist-
ent. PN did the data analyses and sample size calculations.
FM communicated with patients including treatment allo-
cation, collected key data and maintained the database. PJ
co-ordinated the study and drafted this manuscript. All
authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank our colleagues Simon Bowman, Sue Brailsford,
Catherine Ferrarin, Dawn Homer, Kim Jago, Ronald Jubb, Claire Moody,
Peggy Pye, Elizabeth Rankin, Tammy Tang and Louise White for help in
completing this study successfully. We wish to especially thank all the phys-
iotherapy assistants who helped us with treating patients and collecting
data. This study was funded by a project grant from the University Hospital
Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust Charities. The charity had no role in
Publish with Bio Med Central and every
scientist can read your work free of charge
"BioMed Central will be the most significant development for
disseminating the results of biomedical research in our lifetime."
Sir Paul Nurse, Cancer Research UK
Your research papers will be:
available free of charge to the entire biomedical community
peer reviewed and published immediately upon acceptance
cited in PubMed and archived on PubMed Central
yours — you keep the copyright
Submit your manuscript here:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/publishing_adv.asp
BioMedcentral
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2007, 8:23 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/8/23
Page 7 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)
study design, conduct of the study, data interpretation, reporting the data
or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
References
1. BBC Radio 4. You and Yours – Transcript. TX: 13.05.05 –
Hydrotherapy Pools. Presenter: Peter White [http://
www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/
transcript_2005_19_fri_01.shtml]
2. Van de Ende CHM, Vliet Vlieland TPM, Munneke M, Hazes JMW:
Dynamic exercise therapy for treating rheumatoid arthritis.
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Review 1998:CD000322. DOI:
10.1002/14651858.CD000322
3. Blair SN, Kampert JB, Kohl HW, Barlow CE, Macera C, Paffenbarger
RS Jr, Gibbons LW: Influences of cardiorespiratory fitness and
other precursors on cardiovascular disease and all-cause
mortality in men and women. JAMA 1996, 276:205-10.
4. Verhagen AP, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA, Cardoso JR, de Bie RA, Boers M,
De Vet HCW: Balneotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis. The
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004:CD000518. DOI
10.1002/14651858. CD000518
5. Hall J, Skevington SM, Maddison PJ, Chapman K: A randomized and
controlled trial of hydrotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis.
Arthritis Car Res 1996, 9:206-15.
6. Bilberg A, Ahlmén M, Mannerkorpi K: Moderately intensive exer-
cise in a temperate pool for patients with rheumatoid arthri-
tis: a randomised controlled study. Rheumatology 2005,
44:502-8.
7. Hochberg MC, Chang RW, Dwosh I, Lindsey S, Pincus T, Wolfe S:
American College of Rheumatology 1991. The Revised Cri-
teria for the Classification of Global Functional Status in RA.
Arthritis Rheum 1992, 35:498-502.
8. Haahr M: Heads or tails service. [http://www.random.org
].
9. Guy W, (Ed): ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharma-
cology. In Psychopharmacology Research Branch Rockville, MD: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Service, Alcohol Drug Abuse and
Mental Health Administration, NIMH; 1976.
10. Richards SCM, Scott DL: Prescribed exercise in people with
fibromyalgia: parallel group randomised controlled trial. BMJ
2002, 325:185-89.
11. Fulcher KY, White PD: Randomised controlled trial of graded
exercise in patients with the chronic fatigue syndrome. BMJ
1997, 314:1647-52.
12. Wade DT, Wood VA, Heller A, Maggs J, Langton Hewer R: Walking
after stroke. Measurement and recovery after 3 months.
Scand J Rehabil Med 1987, 19:25-30.
13. Eversden L, Meek S, Turvey S: A pilot study to compare the
effect of hydrotherapy on walk time, global well-being and
Euroqol EQ-5D in patients with rheumatic disease
[abstract]. Rheumatology 2001, 40(Supplement 1):140. (Abstract
number 397)
14. EQ-5D [http://www.euroqol.org/
]
15. Hurst NP, Jobanputra P, Hunter M, Lambert CM, Lochead A, Brown
H: Validity of EuroQol – a generic health status instrument in
patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology 1994,
33:655-62.
16. Hurst NP, Kind P, Ruta D, Hunter M, Stubbings A: Measuring
health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: Validity,
responsiveness and reliability of Euroqol (EQ-5D). Rheumatol-
ogy 1997, 36:551-9.
17. De Jong Z, Munneke M, Zwinderman AH, Kroon HM, Jansen A, Ron-
day KH, van Schaardenburg D, Dijkmans BAC, Van den Ende CHM,
Breedveld FC, Vlieland TPMV, Hazes JMW: Is a long-term high-
intensity exercise program effective and safe in patients with
rheumatoid arthritis. Results of a randomised controlled
trial. Arthritis Rheum 2003, 48:2415-24.
18. Epps H, Ginnelly L, Utley M, Southwood T, Gallivan S, Sculpher M,
Woo P: Is hydrotherapy cost effective? A randomised con-
trolled trial of combined hydrotherapy programmes com-
pared with physiotherapy land techniques in children with
juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Health Technol Assess 2005,
9(39):iii-iv.
19. Prutkin J, Feinstein AR: Quality-of-life measurements: Origin
and pathogenesis. Yale J Biol Med 2002, 75:79-93.
20. Carr AJ, Higginson IJ: Are quality of life measures patient cen-
tred? BMJ 2001, 322:1357-60.
21. MacPherson H: Pragmatic clinical trials. Complementary therapies
in Med 2004, 12:136-140.
22. Eyler AA: Correlates of physical activity: Who's active and
who's not? Arthritis Rheum (Arthritis Care Res) 2003, 49:136-40.
23. Campbell R, Evans M, Tucker M, Quilty B, Dieppe P, Donovan JL:
Why don't patients do their exercises? Understanding non-
compliance with physiotherapy in patients with osteoarthri-
tis of the knee. J Epidemiol Comm Health 2001, 55:132-8.
24. Stenstrom CH, Arge B, Sundbom A: Home exercise and compli-
ance in inflammatory rheumatic diseases – A prospective
clinical trial. J Rheumatol 1997, 24:
470-6.
25. Lineker SC, Bell MJ, Wilkins AL, Badley EM: Improvements follow-
ing short term home based physical therapy are maintained
at one year in people with moderate to severe rheumatoid
arthritis. J Rheumatol 2001, 28:165-8.
26. Reilly KA, Bird HA: Prophylactic hydrotherapy. Rheumatology
2001, 40:4-6.
Pre-publication history
The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed
here:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/8/23/prepub
