File Download
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1177/2309499020971866
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85100546132
- PMID: 33509054
- WOS: WOS:000617148500001
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: A comparison of six outcome measures across the recovery period after distal radius fixation–which to use and when?
Title | A comparison of six outcome measures across the recovery period after distal radius fixation–which to use and when? |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Gartland and Werley score Green and O’Brien score PRWE QuickDASH patient-reported outcome measure |
Issue Date | 2021 |
Publisher | SAGE Publications: Creative Commons. The Journal's web site is located at https://journals.sagepub.com/home/osj |
Citation | Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery, 2021, v. 29 n. 1, p. 2309499020971866 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Purpose: Many standardized outcome measures exist to measure recovery after surgical fixation of distal radius fractures, however, choosing the optimal instrument is difficult. We evaluated responsiveness, ceiling/floor effects, and criterion validity over multiple time intervals across a 2-year follow-up period for six commonly used instruments.
Methods: A total of 259 patients who received open reduction and internal fixation for distal radius fractures between 2012 and 2015 were recruited. Patients were administered the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE), Shortened Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH), Green and O'Brien score (Cooney modification) (CGNO), Gartland and Werley score (Sarmiento modification) (SGNW), flexion-extension arc (FEArc), and grip fraction test (GripFrac) at 1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Responsiveness was evaluated by calculating standardized response means (SRM) and Cohen's d effect sizes (ES), and by correlating each instrument's change scores against those of QuickDASH and PRWE, which were also used as external comparators to assess criterion validity. Ceiling/floor effects were calculated for all measures at each time point.
Results: SRM (1.5-24 months) were 1.81, 1.77, 1.43, 1.16, 2.23, 2.45 and ES (1.5-24 months) were 1.81, 1.82, 1.95, 1.31, 1.99 and 2.90 for QuickDASH, PRWE, CGNO, SGNW, FEArc, and GripFrac respectively. Spearman correlation coefficients against QuickDASH at 24 months were: 0.809, 0.248, 0.563, 0.285, and 0.318 for PRWE, CGNO, SGNW, FEArc, and GripFrac respectively. Significant (>15% of patients reaching maximum score) ceiling effects were observed before 6 months for PRWE and SGNW.
Conclusions: Our evidence supports the use of QuickDASH, PRWE, FEArc and GripFrac up to 6 months postsurgery, and QuickDASH and PRWE after 6 months.
Level of evidence: Level II. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/302465 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 1.3 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.557 |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Fang, C | - |
dc.contributor.author | Fang, E | - |
dc.contributor.author | Yee, DKH | - |
dc.contributor.author | Kwan, K | - |
dc.contributor.author | Leung, G | - |
dc.contributor.author | Leung, F | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-09-06T03:32:41Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2021-09-06T03:32:41Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2021 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery, 2021, v. 29 n. 1, p. 2309499020971866 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1022-5536 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/302465 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Purpose: Many standardized outcome measures exist to measure recovery after surgical fixation of distal radius fractures, however, choosing the optimal instrument is difficult. We evaluated responsiveness, ceiling/floor effects, and criterion validity over multiple time intervals across a 2-year follow-up period for six commonly used instruments. Methods: A total of 259 patients who received open reduction and internal fixation for distal radius fractures between 2012 and 2015 were recruited. Patients were administered the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE), Shortened Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH), Green and O'Brien score (Cooney modification) (CGNO), Gartland and Werley score (Sarmiento modification) (SGNW), flexion-extension arc (FEArc), and grip fraction test (GripFrac) at 1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Responsiveness was evaluated by calculating standardized response means (SRM) and Cohen's d effect sizes (ES), and by correlating each instrument's change scores against those of QuickDASH and PRWE, which were also used as external comparators to assess criterion validity. Ceiling/floor effects were calculated for all measures at each time point. Results: SRM (1.5-24 months) were 1.81, 1.77, 1.43, 1.16, 2.23, 2.45 and ES (1.5-24 months) were 1.81, 1.82, 1.95, 1.31, 1.99 and 2.90 for QuickDASH, PRWE, CGNO, SGNW, FEArc, and GripFrac respectively. Spearman correlation coefficients against QuickDASH at 24 months were: 0.809, 0.248, 0.563, 0.285, and 0.318 for PRWE, CGNO, SGNW, FEArc, and GripFrac respectively. Significant (>15% of patients reaching maximum score) ceiling effects were observed before 6 months for PRWE and SGNW. Conclusions: Our evidence supports the use of QuickDASH, PRWE, FEArc and GripFrac up to 6 months postsurgery, and QuickDASH and PRWE after 6 months. Level of evidence: Level II. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.publisher | SAGE Publications: Creative Commons. The Journal's web site is located at https://journals.sagepub.com/home/osj | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery | - |
dc.rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. | - |
dc.subject | Gartland and Werley score | - |
dc.subject | Green and O’Brien score | - |
dc.subject | PRWE | - |
dc.subject | QuickDASH | - |
dc.subject | patient-reported outcome measure | - |
dc.title | A comparison of six outcome measures across the recovery period after distal radius fixation–which to use and when? | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.identifier.email | Fang, C: cfang@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.email | Yee, DKH: yeedns@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.email | Kwan, K: kyhkwan@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.email | Leung, F: klleunga@hkucc.hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Fang, C=rp02016 | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Kwan, K=rp02014 | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Leung, F=rp00297 | - |
dc.description.nature | published_or_final_version | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1177/2309499020971866 | - |
dc.identifier.pmid | 33509054 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85100546132 | - |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 324732 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 29 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 1 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 2309499020971866 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 2309499020971866 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000617148500001 | - |
dc.publisher.place | United States | - |