Responsiveness of the short form-36, disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire, patient-rated wrist evaluation, and physical impairment measurements in evaluating recovery after a distal radius fracture

被引:293
作者
MacDermid, JC [1 ]
Richards, RS [1 ]
Donner, A [1 ]
Bellamy, N [1 ]
Roth, JH [1 ]
机构
[1] St Josephs Hlth Ctr, Hand & Upper Limb Ctr, Clin Res Lab, London, ON N6A 4L6, Canada
来源
JOURNAL OF HAND SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME | 2000年 / 25A卷 / 02期
关键词
radius; fracture; outcome evaluation; responsiveness;
D O I
10.1053/jhsu.2000.jhsu25a0330
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
We evaluated the responsiveness of patient questionnaires and physical testing in the assessment of recovery after distal radius fracture. Patients (n = 59) were assessed at their baseline clinic visit and again 3 and 6 months after injury. At each visit patients completed a short form-36, Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, and patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE). At 3 and 6 months grip strength, range of motion, and dexterity were analyzed. Standardized response means (SRM) and effects sizes were calculated to indicate responsiveness. The PRWE was the most responsive. Both the PRWE (SRM = 2.27) and the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (SRM = 2.01) questionnaire were more responsive than the short form-36 (SRM = 0.92). The physical component summary score of the short form-36 was similar to that of the physical component subscales. Questionnaires were highly responsive during the 0- to 3-month time period when physical testing could not be performed. Of the physical tests, grip strength was most responsive, followed by range of motion. Responsive patient-rating scales and physical performance evaluations can assist with outcome evaluation of patients with distal radius fracture. (J Hand Surg 2000;25A:330-340. Copyright (C) 2000 by the American Society for Surgery of the Hand.).
引用
收藏
页码:330 / 340
页数:11
相关论文
共 34 条
[1]   Outcome after colles fracture: The relative responsiveness of three questionnaires and physical examination measures [J].
Amadio, PC ;
Silverstein, MD ;
Ilstrup, DM ;
Schleck, CD ;
Jensen, LM .
JOURNAL OF HAND SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 1996, 21A (05) :781-787
[2]   Reliability of range-of-motion measurement in the elbow and forearm [J].
Armstrong, AD ;
MacDermid, JC ;
Chinchalkar, S ;
Stevens, RS ;
King, GJW .
JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 1998, 7 (06) :573-580
[3]   Evaluating changes in health status: Reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders [J].
Beaton, DE ;
HoggJohnson, S ;
Bombardier, C .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1997, 50 (01) :79-93
[4]   Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: A comparison of different instruments [J].
Beurskens, AJHM ;
deVet, HCW ;
Koke, AJA .
PAIN, 1996, 65 (01) :71-76
[5]  
Fernandez JJ, 1997, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P36
[6]  
Fess E.E., 1992, Grip strength. Clinical assessment recommendations, P41
[7]  
Hudak PL, 1996, AM J IND MED, V29, P602, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199606)29:6<602::AID-AJIM4>3.0.CO
[8]  
2-L
[9]  
Hurst NP, 1997, BRIT J RHEUMATOL, V36, P551
[10]  
JEBSEN R H, 1969, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, V50, P311