James G. Wright

Measuring the wole or the parts

UNLABELLED The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) outcome measure was developed to evaluate disability and symptoms in single or multiple disorders of the upper limb at one point or at many points in time. PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the DASH in a group of diverse patients and to compare the results with those obtained with joint-specific measures. METHODS Two hundred patients with either wrist/hand or shoulder problems were evaluated by use of questionnaires before treatment, and 172 (86%) were re-evaluated 12 weeks after treatment. Eighty-six patients also completed a test-retest questionnaire three to five days after the initial (baseline) evaluation. The questionnaire package included the DASH, the Brigham (carpal tunnel) questionnaire, the SPADI (Shoulder Pain and Disability Index), and other markers of pain and function. Correlations or t-tests between the DASH and the other measures were used to assess construct validity. Test-retest reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient and other summary statistics. Responsiveness was described using standardized response means, receiver operating characteristics curves, and correlations between change in DASH score and change in scores of other measures. Standard response means were used to compare DASH responsiveness with that of the Brigham questionnaire and the SPADI in each region. RESULTS The DASH was found to correlate with other measures (r > 0.69) and to discriminate well, for example, between patients who were working and those who were not (p<0.0001). Test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.96) exceeded guidelines. The responsiveness of the DASH (to self-rated or expected change) was comparable with or better than that of the joint-specific measures in the whole group and in each region. CONCLUSIONS Evidence was provided of the validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness of the DASH. This study also demonstrated that the DASH had validity and responsiveness in both proximal and distal disorders, confirming its usefulness across the whole extremity.

Development of the QuickDASH: Comparison of Three Item-Reduction Approaches

BACKGROUND The purpose of this study was to develop a short, reliable, and valid measure of physical function and symptoms related to upper-limb musculoskeletal disorders by shortening the full, thirty-item DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) Outcome Measure. METHODS Three item-reduction techniques were used on the cross-sectional field-testing data derived from a study of 407 patients with various upper-limb conditions. These techniques were the concept-retention method, the equidiscriminative item-total correlation, and the item response theory (Rasch modeling). Three eleven-item scales were created. Data from a longitudinal cohort study in which the DASH questionnaire was administered to 200 patients with shoulder and wrist/hand disorders were then used to assess the reliability (Cronbach alpha and test-retest reliability) and validity (cross-sectional and longitudinal construct) of the three scales. Results were compared with those derived with the full DASH. RESULTS The three versions were comparable with regard to their measurement properties. All had a Cronbach alpha of > or = 0.92 and an intraclass correlation coefficient of > or = 0.94. Evidence of construct validity was established (r > or = 0.64 with single-item indices of pain and function). The concept-retention method, the most subjective of the approaches to item reduction, ranked highest in terms of its similarity to the original DASH. CONCLUSIONS The concept-retention version is named the QuickDASH. It contains eleven items and is similar with regard to scores and properties to the full DASH. A comparison of item-reduction approaches suggested that the retention of clinically sensible and important content produced a comparable, if not slightly better, instrument than did more statistically driven approaches.

Introducing Levels of Evidence to The Journal

Orthopaedic surgeons have always based their clinical care on evidence. Surgeons use evidence to make decisions tailored to an individual patients needs and circumstances. The primary sources of evidence for clinicians are studies published in the medical and surgical literature, such as The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. In June 2000, The Journal introduced the quarterly Evidence-Based Orthopaedics section 1. This section introduces orthopaedic surgeons to recent randomized trials relevant to the practice of orthopaedic surgery published in forty-two journals other than The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. Structured abstracts of these studies are …

The American academy of orthopaedic surgeons outcomes instruments: normative values from the general population.

Background: The collection of population-based normative data is a necessary step in the process of standardization of eleven American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) musculoskeletal outcomes measures. These data serve as comparative normative scores with which to assess the effectiveness of treatment regimens in clinical practice settings and to study the clinical outcomes of treatment in musculoskeletal research.Methods: With use of a panel mail methodology, self-reported data on the eleven AAOS musculoskeletal outcomes measures were collected from the general population of the United States.Results: The overall response rate of 67.4% for the various surveys met study expectations. For the eleven measures, the range of the confidence intervals for the surveys was ±1.6% to ±2.3%, exceeding the ±3% set a priori. With use of the Multitrait/Multi-Item Analysis Program, all of the scales within each of eleven measures exhibited high internal reliability as well as discriminant and convergent validity. Items within each of the scales contributed roughly equal proportions of information to the total scale scores.Conclusions: All eleven instruments met study expectations for providing reliable and valid normative data for use in clinical and research settings.

Effects of Bracing in Adolescents with Idiopathic Scoliosis

BACKGROUND The role of bracing in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis who are at risk for curve progression and eventual surgery is controversial. METHODS We conducted a multicenter study that included patients with typical indications for bracing due to their age, skeletal immaturity, and degree of scoliosis. Both a randomized cohort and a preference cohort were enrolled. Of 242 patients included in the analysis, 116 were randomly assigned to bracing or observation, and 126 chose between bracing and observation. Patients in the bracing group were instructed to wear the brace at least 18 hours per day. The primary outcomes were curve progression to 50 degrees or more (treatment failure) and skeletal maturity without this degree of curve progression (treatment success). RESULTS The trial was stopped early owing to the efficacy of bracing. In an analysis that included both the randomized and preference cohorts, the rate of treatment success was 72% after bracing, as compared with 48% after observation (propensity-score-adjusted odds ratio for treatment success, 1.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08 to 3.46). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the rate of treatment success was 75% among patients randomly assigned to bracing, as compared with 42% among those randomly assigned to observation (odds ratio, 4.11; 95% CI, 1.85 to 9.16). There was a significant positive association between hours of brace wear and rate of treatment success (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Bracing significantly decreased the progression of high-risk curves to the threshold for surgery in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. The benefit increased with longer hours of brace wear. (Funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and others; BRAIST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00448448.).

Determining the need for hip and knee arthroplasty: the role of clinical severity and patients' preferences.

Background.Area variation in the use of surgical interventions such as arthroplasty is viewed as concerning and inappropriate. Objectives.To determine whether area arthroplasty rates reflect patient-related demand factors, we estimated the need for and the willingness to undergo arthroplasty in a high- and a low-use area of Ontario, Canada. Research Design. Population-based mail and telephone survey. Subjects.All adults aged ≥55 years in a high (n = 21,925) and low (n = 26,293) arthroplasty use area. Measures.We determined arthritis severity and comorbidity with questionnaires, established the presence of arthritis with examination and radiographs, and evaluated willingness to have arthroplasty with interviews. Potential arthroplasty need was defined as severe arthritis, no absolute contraindication for surgery, and evidence of arthritis on examination and radiographs. Estimates of need were then adjusted for patients’ willingness to undergo arthroplasty. Results.Response rates were 72.0% for questionnaires and interviews. The potential need for arthroplasty was 36.3/1,000 respondents in the high-rate area compared with 28.5/1,000 in the low-rate area (P <0.0001). Among individuals with potential need, only 14.9% in the high-rate area and 8.5% in the low-rate area were definitely willing to undergo arthroplasty (P = 0.03), yielding adjusted estimates of need of 5.4/1,000 and 2.4/1,000 in the high- and low-rate areas, respectively. Conclusions.Demonstrable need and willingness were greater in the high-rate area, suggesting these factors explain in part the observed geographic rate variations for this procedure. Among those with severe arthritis, no more than 15% were definitely willing to undergo arthroplasty, emphasizing the importance of considering both patients’ preferences and surgical indications when evaluating need and appropriateness of rates for surgery.

Inpatient compared with home-based rehabilitation following primary unilateral total hip or knee replacement: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Home-based rehabilitation is increasingly utilized to reduce health-care costs; however, with a shorter hospital stay, the possibility arises for an increase in adverse clinical outcomes. We evaluated the effectiveness and cost of care of home-based compared with inpatient rehabilitation following primary total hip or knee joint replacement. METHODS We randomized 234 patients, using block randomization techniques, to either home-based or inpatient rehabilitation following total joint replacement. All patients followed standardized care pathways and were evaluated, with use of validated outcome measures (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC], Short Form-36, and patient satisfaction), prior to surgery and at three and twelve months following surgery. The primary outcome was the WOMAC function score at three months after surgery. RESULTS The mean length of stay (and standard deviation) in the acute care hospital was 6.3 +/- 2.5 days for the group designated for inpatient rehabilitation prior to transfer to that facility compared with 7.0 +/- 3.0 days for the home-based rehabilitation group prior to discharge home (p = 0.06). The mean length of stay in inpatient rehabilitation was 17.7 +/- 8.6 days. The mean number of postoperative home-based rehabilitation visits was eight. The prevalence of postoperative complications up to twelve months postoperatively was similar in both groups, which each had a 2% rate of dislocation and a 3% rate of clinically important deep venous thrombosis. The prevalence of infection was 0% in the home-based group and 2% in the inpatient group. None of these differences was clinically important. Both groups showed substantial improvements at three and twelve months, with no significant differences between the groups with respect to WOMAC, Short Form-36, or patient satisfaction scores (p > 0.05). The total episode-of-care costs (in Canadian dollars) for the inpatient rehabilitation and home-based rehabilitation arms were

Measuring disability of the upper extremity: a rationale supporting the use of a regional outcome measure.

14,532 and

Randomized phase III trial of single versus fractionated thoracic radiation in the palliation of patients with lung cancer (NCIC CTG SC.15)

11,082, respectively (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS Despite concerns about early hospital discharge, there was no difference in pain, functional outcomes, or patient satisfaction between the group that received home-based rehabilitation and the group that had inpatient rehabilitation. On the basis of our findings, we recommend the use of a home-based rehabilitation protocol following elective primary total hip or knee replacement as it is the more cost-effective strategy.

The role of children in reporting their physical disability

OBJECTIVE Many existing upper extremity outcome measures have been designed for a specific anatomic site (e.g., shoulder) or a specific disease entity (e.g., carpal tunnel syndrome). The purpose of this paper is to examine whether questionnaire items taken from very specific measures are considered relevant only to that specific region or are applicable to the whole extremity. METHODS Fifteen practicing clinicians categorized a sample of 132 items from existing questionnaires according to whether the items reflected disability specific to an anatomic site or were relevant to the whole extremity. RESULTS Seventy-two percent of the items were categorized as relevant to the extremity as a whole, while only 21% of the items were categorized as specific to an anatomic site. CONCLUSION Items in existing specific upper extremity questionnaires are also relevant to other regions and conditions. This finding is in agreement with kinesiologic and biomechanical theories that the upper extremity acts as a single functional unit. Questionnaires designed for the whole extremity could provide a more practical and still valid measure of upper extremity disability.