| Abstract: | There is a great deal of variability in how osteoarthritis is scored and analysed. This paper compares several commonly used techniques of data presentation and analysis, using a prehistorical skeletal sample from the southeastern USA. It finds that these methodologies result in greatly different outcomes, not only in the overall frequencies of lesions, but also in the statistical findings and in which joints apparently have the most arthritis. It is unlikely that a consensus will quickly develop on how to deal with osteoarthritic lesions, owing to widespread disagreements on even such basics as scoring. In the interim, the best way to ensure comparability of studies is to present the most complete and least manipulated data possible, along with easy-to-interpret summary scores. |
