Assessment of validity, reliability, responsiveness and bias of three commonly used patient-reported outcome measures in carpal tunnel syndrome

Ortopedia Traumatologia Rehabilitacja

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 335-340

  Bakhsh, Hadeel ^a   Ibrahim, Inji ^a   Khan, Wasim S ^a   Smitham, Peter ^a   Goddard, Nicholas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bias; Boston questionnaire; Carpal tunnel syndrome; Dash questionnaire; Reliability; Responsiveness; Validity

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CARPAL TUNNEL SYNDROME; DISABILITY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SELF REPORT; STANDARD; VALIDATION STUDY; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CARPAL TUNNEL SYNDROME; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SELF REPORT;

EID: 84875503095     PISSN: 15093492     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5604/15093492.1005085     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Huisstede BM, Randsdorp MS, Coert JH, et al. Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. Part II: Effectiveness of Surgical Treatments: A Systematic Review. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2010;91, 1005-1024.
2. Reale F, Ginanneschi F, Sicurelli F, and Mondelli M. Protocol of Outcome Evaluation for Surgical Release of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. Neurosurgery.2003;53.
3. Alfonso C, Jann S, Massa R, et al. Diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of the carpal tunnel syndrome: a review. Neurological Sciences. 2010; 31, 243-252.
4. Jordan R, Carter T, and Cummins C. A Systematic Review of the Utility of Electrodiagnotic testing in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. British J of General Practice. 2002;670-673.
5. Kanaan N and Sawaya RA. Carpal tunnel syndrome: modern diagnostic and management techniques. British J of General Practic. 2001;311-314.
6. Werner R.A. and Andary M. Carpal tunnel syndrome: pathophysiology and clinical neurophysiology. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2002; 113, 1373-1381.
7. Zyluk A. and Kosovets L. An assessment of the sympathetic function within the hand in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. J of Hand Surg (European Volume) 2010; 35, 402-408.
8. Turner A, Kimble F, Gulyas, et al. 2010 Can the outcome of open carpal tunnel release be predicted?: a review of the literature. ANZ Journal of Surgery 80, 50-54.
9. Uchiyama S, Itsubo T, Nakamura K, et al. Current concepts of carpal tunnel syndrome: pathophysiology, treatment, and evaluation. J of Orthop Science. 2010; 15, 1-13.
10. Bucher C and Hume KI. A Survey of Current Hand Assessment Practice in the UK. Hand Therapy. 2003; 8, 102-109.
11. Chatterjee JS and Price PE. Comparative Responsiveness of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire and the Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire After Carpal Tunnel Release. The J of Hand Surg. 2009;34, 273-280.
12. Greenslade JR, Mehta RL, Belward P, and Warwick DJ. Dash and Boston Questionnaire Assessment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Outcome: What is the Responsiveness of an Outcome Questionnaire? J of Hand Surg (British and European Vo -lume). 2004;29, 159-164.
13. Khan WS, De Silva K, and Ravenscroft M. Regional Outcome Measures in Hand Surgery. In Hand Surgery: Preoperative Expectations, Techniques and Results (Surgery-Procedures, Complications, and Results (ed. R. H. Beckingsworth): Nova Science Publishers, Inc 2009b.
14. Horng YS, Lin MC, Feng CT, et al. Responsiveness of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire in Patients With Hand Injury. The J of Hand Surg. 2010;35, 430-436.
15. Atroshi I, Johnsson R, and Sprinchorn A. Self-administered outcome instrument in carpal tunnel syndrome: Reliability, validity and responsiveness evaluated in 102 patients. Acta Orthop. 1998; 69, 82-88.
16. Dias JJ, Ranjan RA, and Thompson JR. Which Questionnaire is Best? The Reliability, Validity, and Ease of Use of The Patient Evaluation Measure, The Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, And Hand and the Michigan Hand Outcome Measure. J of Hand Surg (European Volume) 2008;33, 9-17.
17. Levine DW, Simmons BP, Koris MJ, et al. A self-administered questionnaire for the assessment of severity of symptoms and functional status in carpal tunnel syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75, 1585-1592.
18. Mallick A, Clarke M, and Kershaw CJ. Comparing the Outcome of a Carpal Tunnel Decompression at 2 Weeks and 6 Months. The J of Hand Surg. 2007;32, 1154-1158.
19. Beaton DE, Katz JN, Fossel AH, et al. Measuring the whole or the parts? Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity. J Hand Ther. 2001 14, 128-146.
20. SooHoo NF, McDonald AP, Seiler JG, and McGillivary GR. Evaluation of the construct validity of the DASH questionnaire by correlation to the SF-36. J Hand Surg Am. 2002;537-541.
21. Amadio PC, Silverstein MD, Ilstrup DM, et al. Outcome assessment for carpal tunnel surgery: The relative responsiveness of generic, arthritis-specific, disease-specific, and physical examination measures. The J of Hand Surg. 1996; 21, 338-346.
22. MacDermid JC, Richards RS, Donner A, et al. 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. J Hand Surg Am. 2000;330-340.
23. Dowrick AS, Gabbe BJ, Williamson OD, and Cameron PA. Does the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand scoring system only measure disability due to injuries to the upper limb?. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88-B, 524-527.
24. Khan W, Jain R, Dillon B, et al. The Manchester-Modified Disabilities of Arm Shoulder and Hand Score. Hand. 2008;3, 240-244.
25. Hulley S B and Cummins S R. Designing Clinical Research: An Epidemiological Approach: Williams and Williams.1998.
26. Katz JN, Losina E, Amick BC, et al. Predictors of outcomes of carpal tunnel release. Arthritis & Rheumatism. 2001;44, 1184-1193.
27. Kotsis S V and Chung K C. Responsiveness of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire in carpal tunnel surgery. J Hand Surg. 2005;81-86.
28. IBM SPSS Statistics. IBM SPSS Statistics 19. Chicago, IL: IBM Corporation 2010.
29. Khan W, Dillon B, Agarwal M, et al. The Validity, Reliability, Responsiveness, and Bias of the Manchester-Modified Disa -bility of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Score in Hand Injuries. Hand 2009a;4, 362-367.
30. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;34-42.
31. Husted JA, Cook R J, Farewell VT. and Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53, 459-468.
32. Chan L, Turner JA, Comstock BA, et al. The Relationship Between Electrodiagnostic Findings and Patient Symptoms and Function in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. Archives of Phyi Medicine and Rehab. 2007;88, 19-24.
33. Schrijver HM, Gerritsen AAM, Strijers RLM, et al. Correlating Nerve Conduction Studies and Clinical Outcome Measures on Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: Lessons From a Randomized Controlled Trial. J of Clinical Neurophysiology 2005;22.
34. Heybeli N, Kutluhan S, Demirci S, et al. Assessment of Outcome of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Comparison of Electro -physiological Findings and a Self-Administered Boston Questionnaire. J of Hand Surg (British and European Volume). 2002;27, 259-264.
35. Mondelli M, Reale F, Sicurelli F, and Padua L Relationship between the Self-Administered Boston Questionnaire and Electrophysiological Findings in Follow-Up of Surgically-Treated Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. J of Hand Surg (British and European Volume).2000;25, 128-134.
36. Gummesson C, Atroshi I, and Ekdahl C. The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) outcome questionnaire: longitudinal construct validity and measuring self-rated health change after surgery. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2003;4, 11.