Diagnostic tests recommended for the clinical assessment of patients with wrist complaints, an e-Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based practice for history-taking and physical examination in the evaluation of wrist complaints is limited. PURPOSE: To create a set of recommended diagnostic tests for the clinical assessment of patients with undifferentiated wrist complaints. STUDY DESIGN: An e-Delphi study, following the recommendations on conducting and reporting Delphi studies, was performed. METHODS: In this e-Delphi study, a national multidisciplinary panel of experts was invited to inventory diagnostic tests, based on several case scenarios, for the probability diagnosis in patients (age ≥18 years) with undifferentiated wrist complaints. Four case scenarios were constructed and presented to the expert panel members, which differed in age of the patient (35 vs 65 years), location (radial vs ulnar), and duration (6 vs 10 weeks) of the complaints. In consecutive rounds, the experts were asked to rate the importance of the inventoried diagnostic tests. Finally, experts were asked to rank recommended diagnostic tests for each case scenario. RESULTS: Merging all results, the following diagnostic tests were recommended for all case scenarios: ask whether a trauma has occurred, ask how the complaints can be provoked, ask about the localization of the complaints, assess active ranges of motion, assess the presence of swelling, assess the difference in swelling between the left and right, assess the deformities or changes in position of the wrist, and palpate at the point of greatest pain. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first scientific study where experts clinicians recommended diagnostic tests when assessing patients with undifferentiated wrist complaints, varying in age of the patient (35 vs 65 years), location (radial vs ulnar), and duration (6 vs 10 weeks).

Tailoring and evaluating treatment with the Patient-Specific Needs Evaluation: A Patient-Centered Approach.

BACKGROUND: No patient-reported instrument assesses patient-specific information needs, treatment goals, and Personal Meaningful Gain (PMG, a novel construct evaluating individualized, clinically relevant improvement). This study reports the development of the Patient-Specific Needs Evaluation (PSN) and examines its discriminative validity (i.e., its ability to distinguish satisfied from dissatisfied patients) and test-retest reliability in patients with hand or wrist conditions. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was used to develop and validate the PSN, following COSMIN guidelines, including pilot testing, a survey (pilot: n=223, final PSN: n=275), cognitive debriefing (n=16), expert input, and validation. Discriminative validity was assessed by comparing the satisfaction level of patients who did or did not achieve their PMG (n=1,985) and test-retest reliability using absolute agreement, Cohen's kappa, and ICCs (n=102). We used a sample of 2,860 patients to describe responses to the final PSN. RESULTS: The PSN has only five questions (completion time ±3 minutes) and is freely accessible online. The items and response options were considered understandable by 90-92% and complete by 84-89% of the end-users. The PSN had excellent discriminative validity (Cramer's V: 0.48, p<0.001) and moderate to high test-retest reliability (Kappa: 0.46-0.68, ICCs: 0.53-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: The PSN is a freely available patient-centered decision-support tool that helps clinicians tailor their consultations to the patient's individual needs and goals. It contains the PMG, a novel construct evaluating individualized, clinically relevant treatment outcomes. The PSN may function as a conversation starter, facilitate expectation management, and aid shared decision-making. The PSN is implementation-ready and can be readily adapted to other patient populations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Outcomes of an exercise program in patients with dorsal or volar midcarpal laxity: a cohort study of 213 patients.

PURPOSE: Describing the outcomes of an exercise program on wrist and hand function for patients with midcarpal instability (MCI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study has a prospective cohort design. Two hundred and thirteen patients with MCI were included. The intervention was a 3-month exercise program consisting of hand therapy and home exercises. The primary outcome was perceived wrist and hand function evaluated with the Patient-Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation (PRWHE) three months after treatment onset. Secondary outcomes were conversion to surgery, pain, and satisfaction with treatment results. RESULTS: PRWHE total scores improved from 51 ± 19 (mean ± SD) to 33 ± 24 at 3 months (95% CI: 36-30, p < 0.001). All visual analog scales for pain demonstrated clinically relevant improvements at 6 weeks and 3 months (p < 0.001). At 3 months, 81% of the participants would undergo the treatment again. After a median follow-up of 2.8 years, 46 patients (22%) converted to surgery. CONCLUSIONS: We found clinically relevant improvements in hand and wrist function and pain. Most participants would undergo treatment again and 78% of the participants did not convert to surgery. Hence, non-invasive treatment should be the primary treatment choice for patients with MCI.

Midcarpal instability (MCI) is a disabling condition and treatment options are limited.Patients with MCI can benefit from an exercise program aiming to improve the strength and coordination of the wrist muscles.Participants improved in hand/wrist function and 78% did not convert to surgery.Non-invasive treatment should be the primary treatment choice for these patients.

Dutch Multidisciplinary Guideline on Dupuytren Disease.

Purpose: To provide a comprehensive, evidence-based overview of the treatment for Dupuytren disease, specifically needle techniques, radiotherapy, primary conservative therapy, surgery, lipofilling, operative arthrolysis, salvage techniques, and the postoperative protocol and to make clinical recommendations for health care practitioners and patients. Methods: Comprehensive multidisciplinary guideline process funded by the Quality Foundation of the Dutch Federation of Medical Specialists. This process included a development, commentary, and authorization phase. Patients participated in every phase. Multiple databases and existing guidelines up to August 2020 were searched. Studies on Dupuytren disease were considered eligible. Specific eligibility criteria were described per module. To appraise the certainty of the evidence, reviewers extracted data, assessed the risk of bias, and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method, where applicable. Important considerations were as follows: patient values and preferences, costs, acceptability of other stakeholders, and feasibility of implementation. Recommendations were made based on the evidence from the literature and the considerations. The primary and secondary outcome measures were defined per module based on the input of patients obtained in collaboration with the Netherlands Patient Federation and health care providers from different professions. Results: The following 8 specific modules were completed for Dupuytren disease: (1) needle techniques, (2) radiotherapy, (3) primary conservative therapy, (4) surgery, (5) lipofilling, (6) operative arthrolysis, (7) salvage techniques, and (8) the postoperative protocol. Conclusions: Our Dutch multidisciplinary guideline on Dupuytren disease provides 8 modules developed according to the standards of the Dutch Federation of Medical Specialists. Evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice are provided for needle techniques, radiotherapy, primary conservative therapy, surgery, lipofilling, operative arthrolysis, salvage techniques, and the postoperative protocol. This guideline can assist health care providers and patients in clinical practice. Type of study/level of evidence: Systematic review/I-II.

Determining the Minimally Important Change of the Michigan Hand outcomes Questionnaire in patients undergoing trigger finger release.

INTRODUCTION: The Michigan Hand outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) is a widely used instrument to evaluate treatment results for hand conditions. Establishing the Minimally Important Change (MIC) is essential for interpreting change in outcome that is clinically relevant. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The purpose of this study was to determine the MIC of the MHQ total and subscale scores in patients undergoing trigger finger release. STUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective cohort study conducted between December 2011 and February 2020. METHODS: Patients completed the MHQ prior to surgery and 3 months postoperatively. The MIC of the MHQ was determined using 5 anchor-based methods (ie, 2 anchor mean change methods and 3 receiver operating characteristic methods). The median MIC value was determined to represent the triangulated MIC. RESULTS: A total of 1814 patients were included. The MIC for the MHQ total score ranged from 7.7 to 10.9, with a triangulated estimate of 9.3. The MIC estimates for 5 of 6 of the MHQ subscales ranged from 7.7 to 20.0. No MICs could be determined for the MHQ subscale "aesthetics" due to low correlations between the anchor questions and MHQ change scores. CONCLUSIONS: These MIC estimates can contribute to the interpretation of clinical outcomes following trigger finger release and for assessment of power in prospective trials.

Closing the loop: a 10-year experience with routine outcome measurements to improve treatment in hand surgery.

Routine outcome measurements as a critical prerequisite of value-based healthcare have received considerable attention recently. There has been less attention for the last step in value-based healthcare where measurement of outcomes also leads to improvement in the quality of care. This is probably not without reason, since the last part of the learning cycle: 'Closing the loop', seems the hardest to implement.The journey from measuring outcomes to changing daily care can be troublesome. As early adopters of value-based healthcare, we would like to share our 10 years of experience in this journey.Examples of feedback loops are shown based on outcome measurements implemented to improve our daily care process as a focused hand surgery and hand therapy clinic.Feedback loops can be used to improve shared decision making, to monitor or predict treatment progression over time, for extreme value detection, improve journal clubs, and surgeon evaluation.Our goal as surgeons to improve treatment should not stop at the act of implementing routine outcome measurements.We should implement routine analysis and routine feedback loops, because real-time performance feedback can accelerate our learning cycle. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:439-450. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210012.

Test-retest Reliability and Construct Validity of the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire in Patients with Hand and Wrist Conditions: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: A patient's satisfaction with a treatment result is an important outcome domain as clinicians increasingly focus on patient-centered, value-based healthcare. However, to our knowledge, there are no validated satisfaction metrics focusing on treatment results for hand and wrist conditions. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Among patients who were treated for hand and wrist conditions, we asked: (1) What is the test-retest reliability of the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire? (2) What is the construct validity of that outcomes tool? METHODS: This was a prospective study using two samples: a test-retest reliability sample and a construct validity sample. For the test-retest sample, data collection took place between February 2020 and May 2020, and we included 174 patients at the end of their treatment with complete baseline data that included both the primary test and the retest. Test-retest reliability was evaluated with a mean time difference of 7.2 ± 1.6 days. For the construct validity sample, data collection took place between January 2012 and May 2020. We included 3742 patients who completed the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire, VAS, and the Net Promotor Score (NPS) at 3 months. Construct validity was evaluated using hypothesis testing in which we correlated the patients' level of satisfaction to the willingness to undergo the treatment again, VAS scores, and the NPS. We performed additional hypothesis testing on 2306 patients who also completed the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ). Satisfaction with the treatment result was measured as the patients' level of satisfaction on a 5-point Likert scale and their willingness to undergo the treatment again under similar circumstances. RESULTS: We found high reliability for level of satisfaction measured on Likert scale (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.86 [95% CI 0.81 to 0.89]) and almost-perfect agreement for both level of satisfaction measured on the Likert scale (weighted kappa 0.86 [95% CI 0.80 to 0.91]) and willingness to undergo the treatment again (kappa 0.81 [95% CI 0.70 to 0.92]) of the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire. Construct validity was good to excellent as seven of the eight hypotheses were confirmed. In the confirmed hypotheses, there was a moderate-to-strong correlation with VAS pain, VAS function, NPS, MHQ pain, and MHQ general hand function (Spearman rho ranged from 0.43 to 0.67; all p < 0.001) and a strong to very strong correlation with VAS satisfaction and MHQ satisfaction (Spearman rho 0.73 and 0.71; both p < 0.001). The rejected hypothesis indicated only a moderate correlation between the level of satisfaction on a 5-point Likert scale and the willingness to undergo the treatment again under similar circumstances (Spearman rho 0.44; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire has good-to-excellent construct validity and very high test-retest reliability in patients with hand and wrist conditions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This questionnaire can be used to reliably and validly measure satisfaction with treatment result in striving for patient-centered care and value-based healthcare. Future research should investigate predictors of variation in satisfaction with treatment results.

Content validity and responsiveness of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale in patients with Dupuytren's disease.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcome measures have become the standard tool for reflecting the patient's perspective on their treatment outcome for a wide variety of hand conditions. The Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), is an individualized questionnaire that enables patients to specify those activities with which they have difficulty in daily life. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: This study aims to determine the content validity and responsiveness of the PSFS compared with the Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ) in patients with Dupuytren's disease. STUDY DESIGN: Multicentre inception cohort. METHODS: Patients with Dupuytren's disease being treated with percutaneous needle aponeurotomy, limited fasciectomy, or skin graft were selected from a database with routine outcome measurements in usual care. To assess content validity of the PSFS, the activities specified by patients were classified into the International Classification of Function core set for hand conditions. The standardized response mean is calculated for the pre- and post-change scores of the PSFS to evaluate responsiveness. RESULTS: Three hundred and eight patients were analyzed before and three months after treatment. Content validity of the PSFS was appropriate because 95% of all items could be classified into the International Classification of Function activities and participation domain. The standardized response mean of the PSFS was 1.0 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.2), which was substantially larger than the standardized response mean of the MHQ score 0.58 (95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.74). DISCUSSION: The PSFS is a content-valid questionnaire which may be more responsive to change than a fixed-item instrument such as the MHQ in patients with Dupuytren's disease. CONCLUSIONS: The PSFS is a valuable tool to set therapy goals and evaluate the progress over time in patients with Dupuytren's disease.

Patient's satisfaction beyond hand function in Dupuytren's disease: analysis of 1106 patients.

This study investigates the outcomes of 1106 patients with Dupuytren's disease treated with limited fasciectomy or percutaneous needle fasciotomy over 16 years according to the different domains of patient-reported hand function. These patients completed the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire before and 3 months after surgery. Scores for the various outcome parameters were calculated and linear regression analyses were used to examine associations between the changes in digital extension deficit and change in Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (sub)scores. We found the largest effects of surgical treatment in the decreases in extension deficit, the appearance of the hand, and the satisfaction with the hand function. However, associations between different domains of evaluation were weak. We conclude that improvement of digital extension deficits is not parallel to varying aspects of patient satisfaction. The findings underline the importance of assessing domains relating to patient satisfaction other than objective hand function measures in Dupuytren's disease. Level of evidence: IV.

The reliability and measurement error of protractor-based goniometry of the fingers: A systematic review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The purpose was to review the available literature for evidence on the reliability and measurement error of protractor-based goniometry assessment of the finger joints. METHODS: Databases were searched for articles with key words "hand," "goniometry," "reliability," and derivatives of these terms. Assessment of the methodological quality was carried out using the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments checklist. Two independent reviewers performed a best evidence synthesis based on criteria proposed by Terwee et al (2007). RESULTS: Fifteen articles were included. One article was of fair methodological quality, and 14 articles were of poor methodological quality. An acceptable level for reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.70 or Pearson's correlation > 0.80) was reported in 1 study of fair methodological quality and in 8 articles of low methodological quality. Because the minimal important change was not calculated in the articles, there was an unknown level of evidence for the measurement error. DISCUSSION: Further research with adequate sample sizes should focus on reference outcomes for different patient groups. For valid therapy evaluation, it is important to know if the change in range of motion reflects a real change of the patient or if this is due to the measurement error of the goniometer. Until now, there is insufficient evidence to establish this cut-off point (the smallest detectable change). CONCLUSION: Following the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments criteria, there was limited level of evidence for an acceptable reliability in the dorsal measurement method and unknown level of evidence for the measurement error. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2a.