Sorensen Amelia A, Howard Daniel, Tan Wen Hui, Ketchersid Jeffrey, Calfee Ryan P
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA.
J Hand Surg Am. 2013 Apr;38(4):641-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.12.032. Epub 2013 Mar 6.
Patient-rated instruments are increasingly used to measure orthopedic outcomes. However, the clinical relevance of modest score changes on such instruments is often unclear. This study was designed to define the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), QuickDASH (subset of DASH), and Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) questionnaires for atraumatic conditions of the hand, wrist, and forearm.
We prospectively analyzed 102 patients undergoing nonoperative treatment for isolated tendinitis, arthritis, or nerve compression syndromes from the forearm to the hand. By phone, patients completed the DASH, QuickDASH, and PRWE at enrollment and at 2 weeks (n = 78 used in the analysis) and 4 weeks (n = 24 used in the analysis) after initiating treatment. Patients reporting clinical improvement each contributed a single data point categorized as no change (n = 41), minimal improvement (n = 30), or marked improvement (n = 31) via a validated anchor-based approach. We calculated the MCID as the mean change score for each outcome measure in the minimal improvement group.
The MCID (95% confidence interval) for the DASH was 10 (5-15). The MCID for the QuickDASH was 14 (9-20). The MCID was 14 (8-20) for the PRWE. The MCID values were significantly different from changes in these outcome measures at times of either no change or marked improvement. The MCID values positively correlated with baseline outcome measure scores to a greater degree than final outcome measure scores.
Longitudinal changes on the DASH of 10 points, on the QuickDASH of 14 points, and on the PRWE of 14 points represent minimal clinically important changes. We recommend application of these MCID values for group-level analysis when conducting research and interpreting data examining groups of patients as opposed to assessing individual patients. These MCID values may provide a basis for sample size calculations for future investigation using these common patient-rated outcome measures.
TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic III.
患者自评工具越来越多地用于评估骨科治疗效果。然而,此类工具上分数的微小变化在临床上的相关性往往并不明确。本研究旨在确定手臂、肩部和手部功能障碍(DASH)问卷、简化版DASH问卷(QuickDASH)以及患者自评腕关节评估(PRWE)问卷针对手部、腕部和前臂非创伤性疾病的最小临床重要差异(MCID)。
我们前瞻性分析了102例因孤立性肌腱炎、关节炎或从前臂到手部的神经卡压综合征而接受非手术治疗的患者。患者通过电话在入组时、开始治疗后2周(分析中使用78例)和4周(分析中使用24例)完成DASH、QuickDASH和PRWE问卷。报告临床改善的患者通过一种经过验证的基于锚定的方法,每人贡献一个数据点,分为无变化(n = 41)、轻微改善(n = 30)或显著改善(n = 31)。我们将MCID计算为轻微改善组中每种结局指标的平均变化分数。
DASH问卷的MCID(95%置信区间)为10(5 - 15)。QuickDASH问卷的MCID为14(9 - 20)。PRWE问卷的MCID为14(8 - 20)。MCID值与这些结局指标在无变化或显著改善时的变化显著不同。MCID值与基线结局指标分数的正相关性高于最终结局指标分数。
DASH问卷纵向变化10分、QuickDASH问卷纵向变化14分以及PRWE问卷纵向变化14分代表最小临床重要变化。我们建议在进行研究和解释检查患者群体的数据时,将这些MCID值应用于组水平分析,而不是评估个体患者。这些MCID值可为未来使用这些常见患者自评结局指标的研究提供样本量计算的基础。
研究类型/证据水平:诊断性研究III级