Do current upper limb orthotic classification systems help clinicians choose and design effective orthoses? A scoping review with expert interviews.

BACKGROUND: Orthosis (orthotic) fabrication is an essential part of the treatment plan for many upper extremity conditions. PURPOSE: We aim to comprehensively identify the current body of evidence about the purpose, structure, scope, and application of available orthotic classification systems. Our secondary aim was to know if the current classification systems can be used as a decision guide for clinicians. STUDY DESIGN: A scoping review. METHODS: A scoping review of research studies identified through data-based and gray literature was conducted to determine studies that addressed classification systems of the orthosis (orthotic) in the hand and upper limb. Two investigators screened study titles and abstracts and did the data extraction. To do a comprehensive review, all the hand therapy associations were contacted and asked to share their specific orthosis classification system. To answer our second aim, we discussed our findings with the experts in a panel. RESULTS: Twelve different classification systems were identified, which were developed with different aims. Five classification systems classified orthosis based on their function (n = 5, 50%); one based on therapeutic goals and proposed a decision algorithm. Two of the proposed systems were aimed at helping in decision-making or offering an algorithm for therapists to help them choose the proper orthosis. The expert panel process identified that the current classification systems could not help clinicians select proper orthosis for their patients. CONCLUSIONS: There are different classification systems which were developed with various aims. However, none of those can help clinicians make informed decisions about appropriate orthosis choices for their patients.

A systematic review of biopsychosocial prognostic factors of recovery after a proximal humerus fracture.

BACKGROUND: Proximal humerus fracture (PHF) is a common upper extremity injury. PHF often causes prolonged disability and interferes with independent function. PURPOSE: This study reviewed and summarized prognostic factors of recovery following PHF and classified them within the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) with each domain sub-categorized by modifiability. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsychINFO from the date of database inception to March 2019 and updated searches in December 2021. Studies included examining an association between prognostic factors and recovery with at least a 6-month follow-up. Two independent reviewers used the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool for methodological bias and levels of evidence. Designs showed wide variability in terms of characteristics of the included population, definition of recovery, assessment of prognostic factors, and outcome measures used. This prevented pooled estimates from being produced. Prognostic factors linked to ICF domains were possible. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies including 4323 participants aged ≥18 met inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was low (35%), moderate (30%), and high (35%) across the included studies. Moderate evidence showed a significant association between pre-fracture functional independence and post-fracture complications with recovery. Fracture type, structural deformity, medication use, age, and gender were prognostic factors with inconclusive evidence. We assigned a weak level of evidence to the remaining 20 factors due to limited data. Immediate rehabilitation, compliance to post-fracture rehabilitation exercise, task-oriented exercise, and pain self-efficacy (i.e., coping behavior) are modifiable and are tapped into the ICF contextual factors. CONCLUSIONS: An array of factors that fit within an ICF biopsychosocial framework have been investigated as potential mediators of outcomes after PHF. The evidence is incomplete conceptually and in terms of research design quality. Preoperative functional status is predictive of functional recovery emphasizing the importance of healthy aging.

The use of occupation-based interventions and assessments in hand therapy: A cross-sectional survey.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to gather information on how hand therapists incorporate occupation-based interventions in their clinical practice and what outcome measures hand therapists use to measure the occupational performance of their clients STUDY DESIGN: Cross-Sectional Survey Design. METHODS: The 16-item Survey was distributed to members of the American Society of Hand Therapists on two occasions. RESULTS: Three hundred eleven hand therapists responded to the survey. Hand therapists use a variety of occupation-based interventions (OBI) in clinical practice and most believe they are important. Findings from this study reveal that incorporating an occupation-based assessment along with or in place of an assessment of body functions and structures is not performed routinely. One hundred twenty-six (41%) respondents indicated that they use occupation-based activities 26-50% of the time with their clients. DISCUSSION: The top three OBI interventions used by hand therapists included dressing tasks, cooking and meal preparation, and in hand manipulation of coins and medication. The lack of understanding of the theoretical models regarding occupation-based interventions may be a barrier toward implementation of occupation-based interventions and assessments as many hand therapists may have trained under a medical model. CONCLUSION: Most respondents to this survey indicated that they believe OBI should be performed by hand therapists and use them routinely in practice. The most frequently used type of assessment was the DASH (Disabilities of the Shoulder Arm & Hand). The least frequently used assessment was the Short Form 36 and patient specific occupation-based assessment.

A description of the barriers, facilitators, and experiences of hand therapists in providing remote (tele) rehabilitation: An interpretive description approach.

BACKGROUND: Telerehabilitation is increasingly being used to meet the rehabilitation needs of situations where face-to-face therapy is not possible. Nevertheless, reports on barriers and facilitators of implementing this method from the perspective of therapists still need to be made available. PURPOSE: To investigate the experiences of hand therapists when implementing telerehabilitation, examining the difficulties, barriers, and facilitators encountered during its implementation. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study. METHODS: This study used a purposive sampling method to recruit therapists with varying experiences in telerehabilitation and conducted semi-structured interviews. Data collection and analysis continued iteratively until thematic saturation was achieved. A total of 14 therapists were interviewed via Zoom. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and qualitatively analyzed using thematic analysis. The process of interpretive description guided interviews and analysis of the interviews to identify key barriers and facilitators in providing telerehabilitation. RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Six main themes and 10 corresponding sub-themes were constructed concerning facilitators and barriers to telerehabilitation: factors related to the patient, therapy, therapists, injury, technology, and policy. Therapists implemented different coping strategies in their interventions and measurements to facilitate treatment. However, some interventions, such as orthotic fabrication, could not be done online. Educating therapists, providing a standard method, and integrating with in-person rehabilitation can overcome the barriers to telerehabilitation in hand therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Technology was the main facilitator and, on the other hand, a barrier to providing online hand therapy interventions. Therapists generally reported high satisfaction and usability of this method. Despite all barriers, telerehabilitation can be implemented as a part of hand therapy interventions alongside face-to-face therapy as a hybrid method. The barriers and facilitators experienced and raised by therapists can be added to what is already known regarding telerehabilitation in hand therapy. They might be applied to guide therapeutic procedures and upcoming studies.

Virtual health care & telehealth: Current therapy practice patterns.

STUDY DESIGN: Survey Study. PURPOSE: To investigate recent practice changes with respect to the provision of virtual visits by hand therapists due to the COVID-19 pandemic by asking about changes in the frequency of virtual visits, the assessments and treatments currently provided virtually, and the opinions of therapists on the future on virtual visits in hand therapy practice. METHODS: The survey was distributed to the American Society of Hand Therapists (ASHT), the Australian Hand Therapy Association (AHTA), the Canadian Society of Hand Therapists (CSHT), and the European Federation for the Societies of Hand Therapy (EFSHT). RESULTS: Of the 819 responses, there were 573 therapists (70%) who reported that they currently use virtual visits in their practice. Only 38 therapists (4.6%) were providing virtual visits prior to COVID-19, representing a 15-fold increase in virtual visits since the beginning of the pandemic. Only 26% (n = 213) reported that they used patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) in conjunction with their virtual visits. Approximately 78% (n = 638) said that they thought there is a sustainable future for this method of care in hand therapy practice. DISCUSSION: This survey has helped identify the changing landscape in the provision of rehabilitation and established some of the common assessments and interventions currently utilized by hand therapists in the virtual environment. Next, steps for research are to investigate the reliability and validity of some of the assessments and interventions used, to establish whether virtual care will provide good outcomes for patients, and ultimately understand the optimal combination of conventional therapy and virtual care.

Comparison of finger kinematics between patients with hand osteoarthritis and healthy participants with and without joint protection programs.

STUDY DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional, clinical observational study. BACKGROUND: Finger range of motion (ROM) and functional performance are critical in many daily activities. Hand osteoarthritis (H-OA) is a prevalent disease that impairs both variables. Little quantitative research has been performed on finger kinematics during activities of daily living (ADLs) across health status and method of performance (with or without joint protection programs). PURPOSE: The purpose of this research is to examine the effects of H-OA and method of performance on ROM in the thumb, index, and middle digits (flexion/extension and abduction/adduction) during ADLs. METHODS: This study was conducted using 10 healthy participants (mean age: 28 years) and nine participants with H-OA (mean age: 72 years). All participants performed baseline ROM movements followed by 9 activities of daily living. These activities involved prehension type grasps and were performed with and without the recommended joint protection procedures specific to each task. Thumb IP and MCP, index distal interphalengeal (DIP) and proximal interphalengeal (PIP), and middle DIP and PIP joints were continuously recorded using an electromagnetic tracking system for ROM analysis. RESULTS: Participants with H-OA had a statistically significant decrease in ROM when comparing values measured in the healthy cohort during active ROM (25° decrease) and ADL ROM (25° decrease) in the flex/ext direction. Similarly, following joint protection instruction, a statistically significant decrease in ROM was found during tasks in the flex/ext direction (healthy participant decrease in ROM: 17°, H-OA decrease in ROM:10°) CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that people with hand arthritis move through a smaller arc of motion when performing some functional tasks as compared with the controls, and that with instruction on joint protection techniques, participants made significant changes in the amount of movement used to perform tasks, which supports a proof of principle of joint protection.

Evaluation of individual finger forces during activities of daily living in healthy individuals and those with hand arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Measuring finger forces during activities of daily living and how these forces change for individuals with pathologies such as arthritis is valuable to our understanding of hand function. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The purpose of this study was to determine the forces of individual fingers during the performance of daily activities in healthy participants and determine the envelope of these applied forces. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study investigating twenty-five healthy participants (12 female: 22-65 years old and 13 male: 20-53 years old) and participants with osteoarthritis (12 female: 52-79 years old and 9 male: 64-79 years old) examined at one time point. The force sensors were calibrated for each individual using a load cell to provide force output in Newtons. Each participant performed 19 activities of daily living two times. Force was plotted over time for each task, and the maximum force in each finger during that task was evaluated. RESULTS: The range of applied forces was 1.4 ± 0.6 N to 34.8 ± 1.6 N for healthy participants and 2.3 ± 1.0 N to 30.7 ± 3.7 N for those with osteoarthritis. DISCUSSION: Sensors allowed for real-time monitoring of finger forces during tasks of daily life. This provides the opportunity to isolate hand grips based on finger recruitment and provide information about the magnitude of forces during the activity. CONCLUSION: Measurement of individual finger forces can provide more accurate biomechanical models of the hand and determine the effect of disease on hand functions.

Therapist perceptions of best practice as ordered by referral source: An exploratory survey.

INTRODUCTION: Productive outcomes for the hand therapy patient involve many components. Understanding whether therapists agree with the recommendations they receive, or find these informative, is a first step into understanding how shared decision-making on a treatment plan can be optimized. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The purposes of this study include (1) the extent which therapists see variable presentations of primary surgical/management in some indicator exemplars where practices vary from accepted/evidence-based practice; (2) hand therapists' level of agreement with the interventions prescribed on referrals, (3) describe the undocumented complications observed by hand therapists, and (4) report the therapists' perceptions as to the reasons for these complications METHODS: A survey was designed and pilot tested. Multiple-choice questions and free text allowed further explanation. The survey was administered through an electronic mailing to all American Society of Hand Therapy members with available e-mail addresses. Raw survey data were extracted and processed. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze therapists' demographic information. Frequencies of therapists' responses were calculated. RESULTS: Ninety percent of all who responded have been in practice 10 years or more. The mean of the "often and always" ordered interventions was 20%. The mean of therapist perceptions as to whether these ordered interventions are best practice was 14%. Sixty percent reported that they had found an undocumented condition, and 60% reported to have found a postoperative complication. Perceived reasons for complications included the lack of communication and therapy intervention. DISCUSSION: Hand therapists can play an important role in improving patient outcomes. Therapists can provide the health care team information regarding best practice. Additionally, the hand therapist may be who first identifies a postsurgical complication or an undocumented issue. Communication between the hand therapist and referral source is vital in optimizing patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: Hand therapists can play an important role in improving overall outcomes for patients. The inter-professional working relationship between the referral source, hand therapist, and the patient is a complex phenomenon and communication between the hand therapist and referral source is vital.

The effectiveness of joint-protection programs on pain, hand function, and grip strength levels in patients with hand arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. INTRODUCTION: Joint protection (JP) has been developed as a self-management intervention to assist people with hand arthritis to improve occupational performance and minimize joint deterioration over time. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: We examined the effectiveness between JP and usual care/control on pain, hand function, and grip strength levels for people with hand osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: A search was performed in 5 databases from January 1990 to February 2017. Two independent assessors applied Cochrane's risk of bias tool, and a Grading of Recommendations Assessement, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was adopted. RESULTS: For pain levels at short term, we found similar effects between JP and control standardized mean difference (SMD; -0.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.42 to 0.42, I2 = 49%), and at midterm and long-term follow-up, JP was favored over usual care SMD (-0.32, 95% CI: -0.53 to -0.11, I2 = 0) and SMD (-0.27, 95% CI: -0.41 to -0.12, I2 = 9%), respectively. For function levels at midterm and long-term follow-up, JP was favored over usual care SMD (-0.49, 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.22, I2 = 34%) and SMD (-0.31, 95% CI: -0.50 to -0.11, I2 = 56%), respectively. For grip strength levels, at long term, JP was inferior over usual care mean difference (0.93, 95% CI: -0.74 to 2.61, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of very low to low quality indicates that the effects of JP programs compared with usual care/control on pain and hand function are too small to be clinically important at short-, intermediate-, and long-term follow-ups for people with hand arthritis.

The short-term effects of hot packs vs therapeutic whirlpool on active wrist range of motion for patients with distal radius fracture: A randomized controlled trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Blinded randomized controlled trial. INTRODUCTION: It is generally accepted that heat is beneficial for improving range of motion (ROM). However, the mechanism of action is not clearly understood, and the optimal method of heat application has not been established. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To investigate the immediate effects of using a moist hot pack (MHP) vs therapeutic whirlpool bath (WB) for improving wrist ROM during a therapy session for patients with distal radius fracture. METHODS: About 60 adult patients, with a mean age of 54 years in the MHP group and 53 years in the WB group, with healed distal radius fracture were randomized into 2 groups of 30. Patients in group 1 were placed in an MHP for 15 minutes during therapy. Patients in group 2 had their arm placed in a WB and were asked to perform active wrist ROM exercises for the same period. This occurred for 3 consecutive therapy visits, with wrist and forearm ROM being measured before and after heat during each visit. RESULTS: The multivariate analysis of variance demonstrated that the canonical variate for ROM was significantly different between groups (F[6,53] = 6.01; P < .05), indicating that patients in the WB group had a significantly larger increase in ROM than patients receiving MHP application. DISCUSSION: Both WB and MHP improved wrist ROM during therapy sessions in this study, making both these acceptable options for clinical use when the goal is to precondition a patient for other treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals who received WB showed a statistically greater increase in wrist ROM than those receiving MHP during a therapy session, although the difference between groups may or may not be clinically important considering the small changes in ROM observed in this study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

The assessment of psychological factors on upper extremity disability: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: The primary purpose of this scoping review was to describe the nature and extent of the published research that assesses the relationship between psychological features and patient-reported outcome following surgery or rehabilitation of upper extremity disease or injury. METHODS: Twenty-two included studies were examined for quantitative study design, outcome measure, inclusion/exclusion criteria, follow-up and recruitment strategy. Patient population and psychological assessment tools were examined for validity. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria for this study. Only 7 of the 22 studies were longitudinal and the rest were cross sectional studies. Depression was the most common psychological status of interest and was included in 17 studies. Pain catastrophizing was the psychological status of interest in 5 of the studies. Four studies considered anxiety, 3 considered pain anxiety, 3 considered distress, 2 considered coping, 2 considered catastrophic thinking, and 2 considered fear avoidance beliefs. DISCUSSION: The majority of studies in this review were cross-sectional studies. Cross-sectional studies may not provide conclusive information about cause-and-effect relationships. This review encourages clinicians to be mindful of the psychological implications found in rehabilitation of individuals with upper extremity disease or injury along with being cognizant of choosing appropriate measurement tools that best represent each patient's characteristics and diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: The nature of the research addressing psychological factors affecting outcomes after hand injury focus on negative traits and have limited strength to suggest causation as most have used cross-sectional designs. Stronger longitudinal designs and consideration of positive traits are needed in future studies.

Hand therapists report perceived differences in patient referrals from hand surgeons vs other referral sources: A survey study.

STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive research. INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE: Survey research was performed to determine if there is a perceived difference in outcomes of patients referred to hand therapy from specialized hand surgeons vs nonspecialized physicians. METHODS: The survey was administered to members of the American Society of Hand Therapists through an electronic mailing. RESULTS: A total of 744 American Society of Hand Therapists members responded to the survey. Therapists reported a difference in recovery time between patients referred by a hand surgeon vs a nonspecialized physician. Sixty-seven percent (n = 490) of the respondents answered yes and 12% (n = 84) answered no. DISCUSSION: It is important to consider that not all hand patients receive treatment from a specialized hand surgeon and that a specialized hand therapist may be an integral team member for patients who have not received specialized care from their referral source. CONCLUSION: Most hand therapists who responded to this survey believe that there is a difference in outcomes of patients referred to hand therapy from specialized hand surgeons vs nonspecialized physicians. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.

Clinical manual assessment of the wrist.

Although hand therapists often evaluate patients with wrist pain, novice and experienced clinicians alike would benefit from a systematic assessment to efficiently identify the source of dysfunction and initiate an appropriate treatment plan. This article proposes a systematic approach for clinical evaluation of the wrist by describing the basic clinical examination (BCE) process and interpreting the findings in terms of common pathology. The BCE will enable the hand therapist to identify conditions that are contraindicated for conservative care and require further physician intervention, determine a working diagnosis for most musculoskeletal problems, and determine the appropriate extra tests to confirm the working diagnosis and/or rule out differential diagnoses. By combining findings from the patient's history, BCE, and special testing, hand therapists can efficiently determine the underlying pathology and provide appropriate treatment that can optimize clinical outcomes.

The inter-rater reliability of the modified finger goniometer for measuring forearm rotation.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To compare the inter-rater reliability of using a modified finger goniometer (MFG) for the measurement of isolated forearm rotation for patients with distal radius fractures to the currently accepted technique for isolated forearm measurement. INTRODUCTION: The currently accepted method of forearm measurement requires the assessor to visually estimate vertical for the stationary arm and placement of the moveable arm while placing a straight edge along a curved surface. Inter-rater reliability may be limited as assessors may estimate the placement of the goniometer arms differently depending on their experience, posture, and even their positioning relative to the patient. Rather than continue to place a straight edge on a round surface, we evaluate a new technique using an MFG for measuring isolated forearm rotation. METHODS: Patients with clinically healed distal radius fractures were enrolled in the study. Measurement of active forearm pronation and supination was recorded using 2 separate measurement techniques. These measurements were taken by 2 separate hand therapists with more than 10 years of clinical experience in a tertiary care setting at the beginning and end of hand therapy sessions for 3 consecutive weekly visits. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), standard error of measurement, and minimal detectable change were calculated for each technique. RESULTS: The point estimates for the MFG method demonstrated a slightly higher ICC than the standard method for pronation (0.86 vs 0.82). For supination, both measurement techniques displayed equally high pooled ICCs (0.95). The standard error of measurements for the MFG were 2.1 for pronation and 1.2 for supination compared with 2.9 (pronation) and 1.2 (supination) for the standard technique. These translate into 90% minimal detectable changes of 5° and 3° for the MFG pronation/supination compared with 7° (pronation) and 3° (supination) for the standard technique, respectively. DISCUSSION: Although the point estimates for the ICCs of the MFG method are equal or higher than the standard method, the confidence intervals for the ICCs overlap, indicating that the MFG is at least equivalent to the standard method in terms of inter-rater reliability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b.

A new method for measuring forearm rotation using a modified finger goniometer.

In this manuscript, the authors describe the challenges with measuring forearm range of motion, and propose a new method for obtaining this measurement. Pros, cons, and future research directions are discussed.--Victoria Priganc, PhD, OTR, CHT, CLT, Practice Forum Editor.

The relationship between the Patient-rated Ulnar Nerve Evaluation and the common impairment measures of grip strength, pinch strength, and sensation.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. INTRODUCTION: Grip strength, pinch strength, and sensory threshold are common evaluations used on a daily basis. Identifying how these variables relate to function for patients allows these assessments to be used for screening to identify who may benefit from surgical intervention, and provides valuable information about what impairments patients think are important with respect to functional use of their upper extremity. Therapists can use this information to focus rehabilitation programs on the most important impairments. PURPOSE: To evaluate the relationship between the Patient-rated Ulnar Nerve Evaluation (PRUNE) and impairment measures of grip strength, pinch strength, and one-point sensory threshold. METHODS: Data was prospectively collected from 77 patients before surgery and during regular time points for 2 years following surgery. Patients completed the PRUNE, grip and pinch strength measures, and a one-point sensory threshold evaluation. Correlations between these variables were calculated at baseline, 2 years after surgery, and for change scores during the 2-year follow up. A multiple regression analysis was used to determine the contribution of the impairment variables for determining functional change. RESULTS: Grip strength showed moderate, statistically significant correlation with PRUNE scores at both baseline (r = -0.38) and at two years (r = -0.29). There was also a statistically significant correlation between one point sensory threshold for the small finger at two years (r = 0.36), but not at baseline. Change in grip strength (r = -0.28) and pinch strength (r = -0.30) both demonstrated significant correlations with PRUNE change scores. Overall, changes in grip strength, pinch strength, and sensation accounted for 20% of the variance in PRUNE changes. CONCLUSION: Since grip strength was most highly correlated with PRUNE scores at baseline and at two years, rehabilitation programs that target grip strengthening is supported. While neither grip nor pinch strength were significant contributors to the regression when used together, each showed significant contributions to PRUNE variability when used in the model independently. Therefore, a combination of grip and pinch strengthening may be important during rehabilitation for improving functional results in patients that undergo surgical intervention for cubital tunnel syndrome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b.

Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of pinch strength assessment: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To summarize and critically appraise the quality of studies investigating psychometric properties of pinch strength assessment. METHODS: Medical literature up to February 2024 was searched for studies reporting on at least one measurement property of pinch strength assessment. The quality of the evidence and the risk of bias were rated using COSMIN 2018 guidelines. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies (1962 participants) were included. The majority (16/19) of reliability studies were of adequate to very good quality. Seven of 12 studies of validity were rated as adequate or very good. The quality of the eight responsiveness studies was adequate. Reliability was good to excellent (ICC > 0.75) for neurological conditions, and excellent (ICC > 0.90) for musculoskeletal disorders and healthy participants. Pinch strength showed strong to very strong correlations with grip strength (r = 0.72-0.92), moderate to strong correlations with assessments of dexterity (r = 0.78-0.80), and weak to moderate correlation with patient-reported outcome measures (r = 0.03-0.50). Varied results were found for pinch strength responsiveness in a small number of studies. CONCLUSIONS: Pinch strength assessment is reliable. Validity and responsiveness are less reported, but there is a strong correlation between pinch and grip strength, and a moderate correlation with dexterity.

This review demonstrated that the reliability of pinch strength assessment is good to excellent.Clinicians can measure pinch strength and expect accurate results over repeated measurements and between raters.There is a strong correlation between pinch and grip strength, and a moderate correlation between pinch strength and hand dexterity.The low correlation between pinch strength and patient-reported outcome measures highlights the need to measure these outcomes independently of each other.