Tsang Philemon, Walton David, Grewal Ruby, MacDermid Joy
Department of Physical Therapy, Western University, London, ON.
Department of Physical Therapy, Western University, London, ON.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017 Jun;98(6):1217-1222.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2016.11.023. Epub 2016 Dec 27.
To examine the agreement of scores between the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and QuickDASH questionnaires in patients with distal radius fractures (DRFs) and their score's concurrent validity with Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) scores.
Validity study.
Hand and upper limb clinic.
Patients with DRFs (N=177) aged >18 years were included in this study.
Not applicable.
Measurements of the DASH, QuickDASH, and PRWE were taken at baseline and 1-year follow-up. QuickDASH scores were extracted from the DASH scores. Agreement analysis of the DASH and QuickDASH were evaluated using Bland-Altman technique. Item difficulty analysis was performed to examine the distribution of QuickDASH items among DASH items. Responsiveness of the DASH, QuickDASH, and PRWE were also evaluated by calculating standardized response means.
QuickDASH scores were higher than DASH scores, particularly at baseline. A mean difference of 3.8 and 1.2 points were observed at baseline and 1-year follow-up, respectively. The limits of agreement were wide at baseline, with a range of 24.8 points at baseline, but decreased to 12.5 points at 1-year follow-up. Item difficulty analysis revealed that QuickDASH items were not evenly distributed at baseline. Finally, the responsiveness of the DASH, QuickDASH, and PRWE were similar from baseline to 1-year follow-up (standardized response mean of 2.13, 2.17, and 2.19, respectively).
When changing from the DASH to the QuickDASH in the context of DRF, a systematic bias of higher scores on the QuickDASH should be considered by the user. However, the QuickDASH still demonstrated good concurrent validity and responsiveness.
探讨桡骨远端骨折（DRF）患者中手臂、肩部和手部功能障碍（DASH）问卷与简化版DASH（QuickDASH）问卷得分之间的一致性，以及它们的得分与患者自评腕关节评估（PRWE）得分的同时效度。
效度研究。
手和上肢诊所。
年龄大于18岁的DRF患者（N = 177）纳入本研究。
不适用。
在基线和1年随访时测量DASH、QuickDASH和PRWE。从DASH得分中提取QuickDASH得分。使用Bland-Altman技术评估DASH和QuickDASH的一致性分析。进行项目难度分析以检查QuickDASH项目在DASH项目中的分布。还通过计算标准化反应均值来评估DASH、QuickDASH和PRWE的反应度。
QuickDASH得分高于DASH得分，尤其是在基线时。在基线和1年随访时分别观察到平均差异为3.8分和1.2分。基线时一致性界限较宽，基线时范围为24.8分，但在1年随访时降至12.5分。项目难度分析显示，QuickDASH项目在基线时分布不均。最后，从基线到1年随访，DASH、QuickDASH和PRWE的反应度相似（标准化反应均值分别为2.13、2.17和2.19）。
在DRF背景下从DASH改为QuickDASH时，使用者应考虑QuickDASH得分较高的系统偏差。然而，QuickDASH仍显示出良好的同时效度和反应度。
