Specificity of the minimal clinically important difference of the quick Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand (QDASH) for distal upper extremity conditions

Journal of Hand Therapy

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 81-88

  Smith Forbes, Enrique V ^a   Howell, Dana M ^b,c   Willoughby, Jason ^d   Pitts, Donald G ^d   Uhl, Tim L ^b  

^a Fort Sam Houston Primary Care Clinic   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

^c EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d Kentucky Hand Physical Therapy   (United States)

Author keywords

Disability evaluation; Musculoskeletal diseases; Outcome assessment; Psychometrics; Rehabilitation; Upper extremity

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CARPAL TUNNEL SYNDROME; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CONVERGENT VALIDITY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASE ASSESSMENT; QUICK DISABILITIES OF THE ARM SHOULDER AND HAND; RADIUS FRACTURE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TENNIS ELBOW; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY; COHORT ANALYSIS; DISABILITY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY; UPPER LIMB;

ADULT; CARPAL TUNNEL SYNDROME; COHORT STUDIES; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOMETRICS; RADIUS FRACTURES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TENNIS ELBOW; UPPER EXTREMITY;

EID: 84951040325     PISSN: 08941130     EISSN: 1545004X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jht.2015.09.003     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. 1 Terwee, C.B., Roorda, L.D., Dekker, J., et al. Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol 63:5 (May 2010), 524–534.
2. 2 Beaton, D.E., Wright, J.G., Katz, J.N., Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:5 (May 2005), 1038–1046.
3. 3 Kamper, S.J., Maher, C.G., Mackay, G., Global rating of change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. J Man Manip Ther 17:3 (2009), 163–170.
4. 4 Hudak, P.L., Amadio, P.C., Bombardier, C., Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med 29:6 (Jun 1996), 602–608.
5. 5 Bot, A.G., Becker, S.J., van Dijk, C.N., Ring, D., Vranceanu, A.M., Abbreviated psychologic questionnaires are valid in patients with hand conditions. Clin Orthop Relat Res, Aug 3 2013, 10.1007/s11999-013-3213-2.
6. 6 Roy, J.S., MacDermid, J.C., Woodhouse, L.J., Measuring shoulder function: a systematic review of four questionnaires. Arthritis Rheum 61:5 (May 15 2009), 623–632.
7. 7 Polson, K., Reid, D., McNair, P.J., Larmer, P., Responsiveness, minimal importance difference and minimal detectable change scores of the shortened disability arm shoulder hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire. Man Ther 15:4 (Aug 2010), 404–407.
8. 8 Kennedy, C.A., Beaton, D.E., Solway, S., McConnell, S., Bombardier, C., The DASH and QuickDASH Outcome Measure User's Manual. 3rd ed, 2011, Institute for Work and Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
9. 9 Mintken, P.E., Glynn, P., Cleland, J.A., Psychometric properties of the shortened disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDASH) and Numeric Pain Rating Scale in patients with shoulder pain. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 18:6 (Nov-Dec 2009), 920–926.
10. 10 Sorensen, A.A., Howard, D., Tan, W.H., Ketchersid, J., Calfee, R.P., Minimal clinically important differences of 3 patient-rated outcomes instruments. J Hand Surg Am 38:4 (Apr 2013), 641–649.
11. 11 Franchignoni, F., Vercelli, S., Giordano, A., Sartorio, F., Bravini, E., Ferriero, G., Minimal clinically important difference of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand outcome measure (DASH) and its shortened version (QuickDASH). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 44:1 (Jan 2014), 30–39.
12. 12 Van Vliet, M.M., Maradey, J.A., Homa, K.A., Kerrigan, C.L., The usefulness of patient-reported measures for clinical practice. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:1 (Jul 2013), 105–112.
13. 13 Franchignoni, F., Ferriero, G., Giordano, A., Sartorio, F., Vercelli, S., Brigatti, E., Psychometric properties of QuickDASH – a classical test theory and Rasch analysis study. Man Ther 16:2 (2011), 177–182.
14. 14 Angst, F., Schwyzer, H.K., Aeschlimann, A., Simmen, B.R., Goldhahn, J., Measures of adult shoulder function: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (DASH) and its short version (QuickDASH), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Society standardized shoulder assessment form, Constant (Murley) score (CS), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), Shoulder Disability Questionnaire (SDQ), and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). Arthritis Care Res 63:suppl 11 (Nov 2011), S174–S188.
15. 15 Beaton, D.E., Katz, J.N., Fossel, A.H., Wright, J.G., Tarasuk, V., Bombardier, C., 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 14:2 (Apr-Jun 2001), 128–146.
16. 16 Beaton, D.E., van Eerd, D., Smith, P., et al. Minimal change is sensitive, less specific to recovery: a diagnostic testing approach to interpretability. J Clin Epidemiol 64:5 (May 2011), 487–496.
17. 17 Kennedy, C.A., Beaton, D.E., Smith, P., et al. Measurement properties of the QuickDASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) outcome measure and cross-cultural adaptations of the QuickDASH: a systematic review. Qual Life Res, Mar 12 2013, 10.1007/s11136-013-0362-4.
18. 18 de Vet, H.C., Terluin, B., Knol, D.L., et al. Three ways to quantify uncertainty in individually applied “minimally important change” values. J Clin Epidemiol 63:1 (Jan 2010), 37–45.
19. 19 de Vet, H.C., Terwee, C.B., Ostelo, R.W., Beckerman, H., Knol, D.L., Bouter, L.M., Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 4, 2006, 54.
20. 20 Turner, D., Schunemann, H.J., Griffith, L.E., et al. The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol 63:1 (Jan 2010), 28–36.
21. 21 Revicki, D., Hays, R.D., Cella, D., Sloan, J., Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 61:2 (Feb 2008), 102–109.
22. 22 Stratford, P.W., Riddle, D.L., When minimal detectable change exceeds a diagnostic test-based threshold change value for an outcome measure: resolving the conflict. Phys Ther 92:10 (2012), 1338–1347.
23. 23 Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., Guyatt, G.H., Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10:4 (Dec 1989), 407–415.
24. 24 Norman, G.R., Stratford, P., Regehr, G., Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol 50:8 (Aug 1997), 869–879.
25. 25 Gabel, C.P., Michener, L.A., Melloh, M., Burkett, B., Modification of the upper limb functional index to a three-point response improves clinimetric properties. J Hand Ther 23:1 (Jan-Mar 2010), 41–51 quiz 52.
26. 26 Wu, A., Edgar, D.W., Wood, F.M., The QuickDASH is an appropriate tool for measuring the quality of recovery after upper limb burn injury. Burns 33:7 (Nov 2007), 843–849.
27. 27 Wright, A.A., Cook, C.E., Baxter, G.D., Dockerty, J.D., Abbott, J.H., A comparison of 3 methodological approaches to defining major clinically important improvement of 4 performance measures in patients with hip osteoarthritis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 41:5 (May 2011), 319–327.
28. 28 Turner, D., Schunemann, H.J., Griffith, L.E., et al. Using the entire cohort in the receiver operating characteristic analysis maximizes precision of the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol 62:4 (Apr 2009), 374–379.
29. 29 Wright, A., Hannon, J., Hegedus, E.J., Kavchak, A.E., Clinimetrics corner: a closer look at the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). J Man Manip Ther 20:3 (Aug 2012), 160–166.
30. 30 Dawson, J., Doll, H., Boller, I., et al. Comparative responsiveness and minimal change for the Oxford Elbow Score following surgery. Qual Life Res 17:10 (Dec 2008), 1257–1267.
31. 31 Michener, L.A., McClure, P.W., Sennett, B.J., American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, patient self-report section: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11:6 (Nov-Dec 2002), 587–594.
32. 32 Bruynesteyn, K., van der Heijde, D., Boers, M., et al. Minimal clinically important difference in radiological progression of joint damage over 1 year in rheumatoid arthritis: preliminary results of a validation study with clinical experts. J Rheumatol 28:4 (Apr 2001), 904–910.
33. 33 Beaton, D.E., Boers, M., Wells, G.A., Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol 14:2 (Mar 2002), 109–114.
34. 34 Goldhahn, J., Beaton, D., Ladd, A., Macdermid, J., Hoang-Kim, A., Recommendation for measuring clinical outcome in distal radius fractures: a core set of domains for standardized reporting in clinical practice and research. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134:2 (2014), 197–205.
35. 35 O'Brien, L., Presnell, S., Patient experience of distraction splinting for complex finger fracture dislocations. J Hand Ther 23:3 (Jul-Sep 2010), 249–260 quiz 260.
36. 36 Chung, K.C., Haas, A., Relationship between patient satisfaction and objective functional outcome after surgical treatment for distal radius fractures. J Hand Ther 22:4 (Oct-Dec 2009), 302–307 quiz 308.
37. 37 Wang, Y.C., Hart, D.L., Stratford, P.W., Mioduski, J.E., Baseline dependency of minimal clinically important improvement. Phys Ther 91:5 (May 2011), 675–688.