What are the perspectives of patients with hand and wrist conditions, chronic pain, and patients recovering from stroke on the use of patient and outcome information in everyday care? A Mixed-Methods study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the patients' perspectives on the use of patient- and outcome information tools in everyday care and to investigate which characteristics affect general understanding and perceived value of patient- and outcome information. METHODS: This mixed-methods study included surveys and interviews on understanding, experience, decision-support, and perceived value in patients with hand and wrist conditions and chronic pain. We synthesized our quantitative and qualitative findings using a triangulation protocol and identified factors independently associated with general understanding and perceived value of patient- and outcome information using hierarchical logistic regression. RESULTS: We included 3379 patients. The data triangulation indicated that patients understand the outcome information, they find it valuable, it supports decision-making, and it improves patient-clinician interaction. The following variables were independently associated with better general understanding: having more difficulty with questionnaires (standardized odds ratio 0.34 [95%-CI 031-0.38]), having a finger condition (0.72 [0.57-0.92]), longer follow-up (0.75 [0.61-0.91]), and undergoing surgical treatment (ref: non-surgical treatment, 1.33 [1.11-1.59]). For more general value, these were: having more difficulty with questionnaires (0.40 [0.36-0.44]), having a wrist condition (0.71 [0.54-0.92]), better hand function (1.12 [1.02-1.22]), and requiring help with questionnaires (1.65 [1.33-2.05]). CONCLUSION: Patients value the use of patient- and outcome information tools in daily care and find it easy to understand. The factors associated with understanding and value can be targeted to personalized and value-based healthcare. We recommend using outcome information to improve patient independence, empowerment, and involvement in decision-making.

The Validity and Responsiveness of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale in Patients With First Carpometacarpal Osteoarthritis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the content, construct, and discriminative validity and responsiveness of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) in patients with thumb carpometacarpal arthritis. METHODS: Data were collected at Xpert Clinics, comprising 34 outpatient hand surgery and hand therapy clinics in the Netherlands. We included 267 patients for content validity and 323 patients for construct validity and responsiveness. The PSFS items were classified into the International Classification of Function Core Set for Hand Conditions to assess content validity. We used hypothesis testing to investigate the construct validity and responsiveness. The Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire was used as a comparator instrument. The standardized response mean was calculated to evaluate the magnitude of change. For discriminative validity, we used independent t tests to discriminate between satisfied and dissatisfied patients. RESULTS: We classified 98% of the PSFS items in the International Classification of Function "activities" and "participation" domains, indicating good content validity. Two of six hypotheses for construct validity and three of six hypotheses for responsiveness were confirmed. The standardized response mean for the PSFS was 0.57 (0.46-0.68) and 0.47 (0.35-0.58) for the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire total score. The mean PSFS score showed good discriminative validity because it could distinguish between satisfied and dissatisfied patients at the 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The PSFS scores showed good content and discriminative validity in patients with first carpometacarpal arthritis. Hypothesis testing for responsiveness and construct validity indicates that the PSFS measures a unique construct different from the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The PSFS may be a useful scale for measuring the patient-specific status of individuals with thumb carpometacarpal arthritis.

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).

Explaining Personalized Activity Limitations in Patients With Hand and Wrist Disorders: Insights from Sociodemographic, Clinical, and Mindset Characteristics.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association of sociodemographic, clinical, and mindset characteristics on outcomes measured with a patient-specific patient-reported outcome measure (PROM); the Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS). Secondly, we examined whether these factors differ when a fixed-item PROM, the Michigan Hand Outcome Questionnaire (MHQ), is used as an outcome. DESIGN: Cohort study, using the aforementioned groups of factors in a hierarchical linear regression. SETTING: Twenty-six clinics for hand and wrist conditions in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Two samples of patients with various hand and wrist conditions and treatments: n=7111 (PSFS) and n=5872 (MHQ). INTERVENTIONS: NA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The PSFS and MHQ at 3 months. RESULTS: The PSFS exhibited greater between-subject variability in baseline, follow-up, and change scores than the MHQ. Better PSFS outcomes were associated with: no involvement in litigation (ß[95% confidence interval=-0.40[-0.54;-0.25]), better treatment expectations (0.09[0.06;0.13]), light workload (0.08[0.03;0.14]), not smoking (-0.07[-0.13;-0.01]), men sex (0.07[0.02;0.12]), better quality of life (0.07[0.05;0.10]), moderate workload (0.06[0.00;0.13]), better hand satisfaction (0.05[0.02; 0.07]), less concern (-0.05[-0.08;-0.02]), less pain at rest (-0.04[-0.08;-0.00]), younger age (-0.04[-0.07;-0.01]), better comprehensibility (0.03[0.01;0.06]), better timeline perception (-0.03[-0.06;-0.01]), and better control (-0.02[-0.04;-0.00]). The MHQ model was highly similar but showed a higher R2 than the PSFS model (0.41 vs 0.15), largely due to the R2 of the baseline scores (0.23 for MHQ vs 0.01 for PSFS). CONCLUSIONS: Health care professionals can improve personalized activity limitations by addressing treatment expectations and illness perceptions, which affect PSFS outcomes. Similar factors affect the MHQ, but the baseline MHQ score has a stronger association with the outcome score than the PSFS. While the PSFS is better for individual patient evaluation, we found that it is difficult to explain PSFS outcomes based on baseline characteristics compared with the MHQ. Using both patient-specific and fixed-item instruments helps health care professionals develop personalized treatment plans that meet individual needs and goals.

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.

Factors associated with self-reported pain and hand function following dorsal wrist ganglion excision.

This study aimed to analyse which factors contribute to pain and limited hand function after dorsal wrist ganglion excision. We included 308 patients who underwent surgery between September 2017 and August 2021. Patients completed baseline questionnaires and the patient-rated wrist/hand evaluation questionnaire at baseline and 3 months postoperatively. We observed an improvement in postoperative pain and hand function, but individual outcomes were highly variable. We performed stepwise linear regression analyses to examine which patient characteristics, disease characteristics and psychological factors were associated with postoperative pain and hand function. Higher postoperative pain intensity was associated with recurrence following previous surgery, treatment of the dominant hand, higher baseline pain intensity, lower credibility the patient attributes to the treatment and longer symptom duration. Worse hand function was associated with recurrence following prior surgery, worse baseline hand function and lower treatment credibility. Clinicians should take these findings into account during patient counselling and expectation management.Level of evidence: 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.

What Are the Minimally Important Changes of Four Commonly Used Patient-reported Outcome Measures for 36 Hand and Wrist Condition-Treatment Combinations?

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are frequently used to assess treatment outcomes for hand and wrist conditions. To adequately interpret these outcomes, it is important to determine whether a statistically significant change is also clinically relevant. For this purpose, the minimally important change (MIC) was developed, representing the minimal within-person change in outcome that patients perceive as a beneficial treatment effect. Prior studies demonstrated substantial differences in MICs between condition-treatment combinations, suggesting that MICs are context-specific and cannot be reliably generalized. Hence, a study providing MICs for a wide diversity of condition-treatment combinations for hand and wrist conditions will contribute to more accurate treatment evaluations. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What are the MICs of the most frequently used PROMs for common condition-treatment combinations of hand and wrist conditions? (2) Do MICs vary based on the invasiveness of the treatment (nonsurgical treatment or surgical treatment)? METHODS: This study is based on data from a longitudinally maintained database of patients with hand and wrist conditions treated in one of 26 outpatient clinics in the Netherlands between November 2013 and November 2020. Patients were invited to complete several validated PROMs before treatment and at final follow-up. All patients were invited to complete the VAS for pain and hand function. Depending on the condition, patients were also invited to complete the Michigan Hand outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) (finger and thumb conditions), the Patient-rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation (PRWHE) (wrist conditions), or the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) (nerve conditions). Additionally, patients completed the validated Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire at final follow-up. Final follow-up timepoints were 3 months for nonsurgical and minor surgical treatment (including trigger finger release) and 12 months for major surgical treatment (such as trapeziectomy). Our database included 55,651 patients, of whom we excluded 1528 who only required diagnostic management, 25,099 patients who did not complete the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire, 3509 patients with missing data in the PROM of interest at baseline or follow-up, and 1766 patients who were part of condition-treatment combinations with less than 100 patients. The final sample represented 43% (23,749) of all patients and consisted of 36 condition-treatment combinations. In this final sample, 26% (6179) of patients were managed nonsurgically and 74% (17,570) were managed surgically. Patients had a mean ± SD age of 55 ± 14 years, and 66% (15,593) of patients were women. To estimate the MIC, we used two anchor-based methods (the anchor mean change and the MIC predict method), which were triangulated afterward to obtain a single MIC. Applying this method, we calculated the MIC for 36 condition-treatment combinations, comprising 22 different conditions, and calculated the MIC for combined nonsurgical and surgical treatment groups. To examine whether the MIC differs between nonsurgical and surgical treatments, we performed a Wilcoxon signed rank test to compare the MICs of all PROM scores between nonsurgical and surgical treatment. RESULTS: We found a large variation in triangulated MICs between the condition-treatment combinations. For example, for nonsurgical treatment of hand OA, the MICs of VAS pain during load clustered around 10 (interquartile range 8 to 11), for wrist osteotomy/carpectomy it was around 25 (IQR 24 to 27), and for nerve decompression it was 21. Additionally, the MICs of the MHQ total score ranged from 4 (nonsurgical treatment of CMC1 OA) to 15 (trapeziectomy with LRTI and bone tunnel), for the PRWHE total score it ranged from 2 (nonsurgical treatment of STT OA) to 29 (release of first extensor compartment), and for the BCTQ Symptom Severity Scale it ranged from 0.44 (nonsurgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome) to 0.87 (carpal tunnel release). An overview of all MIC values is available in a freely available online application at: https://analyse.equipezorgbedrijven.nl/shiny/mic-per-treatment/. In the combined treatment groups, the triangulated MIC values were lower for nonsurgical treatment than for surgical treatment (p < 0.001). The MICs for nonsurgical treatment can be approximated to be one-ninth (IQR 0.08 to 0.13) of the scale (approximately 11 on a 100-point instrument), and surgical treatment had MICs that were approximately one-fifth (IQR 0.14 to 0.24) of the scale (approximately 19 on a 100-point instrument). CONCLUSION: MICs vary between condition-treatment combinations and differ depending on the invasiveness of the intervention. Patients receiving a more invasive treatment have higher treatment expectations, may experience more discomfort from their treatment, or may feel that the investment of undergoing a more invasive treatment should yield greater improvement, leading to a different perception of what constitutes a beneficial treatment effect. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our findings indicate that the MIC is context-specific and may be misleading if applied inappropriately. Implementation of these condition-specific and treatment-specific MICs in clinical research allows for a better study design and to achieve more accurate treatment evaluations. Consequently, this could aid clinicians in better informing patients about the expected treatment results and facilitate shared decision-making in clinical practice. Future studies may focus on adaptive techniques to achieve individualized MICs, which may ultimately aid clinicians in selecting the optimal treatment for individual patients.

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.

Routine Health Outcome Measurement: Development, Design, and Implementation of the Hand and Wrist Cohort.

Routine measurement of outcome of clinical care is increasingly considered important, but implementation in practice is challenging. This article describes (1) how the authors created and implemented a routine outcome measurement cohort of patients with hand and wrist conditions and (2) how these data are used to improve the quality of care and facilitate scientific research. Starting in 2011, routine outcome measurement was implemented at all practice sites (currently 22) of a specialized treatment center for hand and wrist conditions across The Netherlands. The authors developed five "measurement tracks," including measurements administered at predetermined time points covering all hand and wrist disorders and treatments. An online system automatically distributes measurements among patients, which can be accessed by health care professionals. Using this system, the total number of yearly assigned tracks increased up to over 16,500 in 2018, adding up to 85,000 tracks in 52,000 patients in total. All surgeons, therapists, and other staff have direct access to individual patient data and patients have access to their treatment information using a secure patient portal. The data serve as a basis for studies on, among others, comparative effectiveness, prediction modeling, and clinimetric analyses. In conclusion, the authors present the design and successful implementation of a routine outcome measurement system that was made feasible using a highly automated data collection infrastructure, tightly linked to the patient journey and the workflow of health care professionals. The system serves not only as a tool to improve care but also as a basis for scientific research studies.

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.

Comparative Effectiveness of Percutaneous Needle Aponeurotomy and Limited Fasciectomy for Dupuytren's Contracture: A Multicenter Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous needle aponeurotomy is a less invasive surgical alternative to limited fasciectomy for Dupuytren's contracture, but appeared less efficacious in a previous randomized clinical trial. This study compared the effectiveness of both techniques in contemporary clinical practice. METHODS: The authors evaluated prospectively gathered data from all patients who were treated with percutaneous needle aponeurotomy or limited fasciectomy between 2011 and 2014 at six hand surgery practice sites in The Netherlands. The degree of total active extension deficit, Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire subscores, and complications evaluated at 6 to 12 weeks after treatment were compared after propensity score-based inverse-probability weighting to account for the differences in baseline characteristics between the treatment groups. RESULTS: After inverse-probability weighting, 78 percutaneous needle aponeurotomy patients and 103 limited fasciectomy patients remained with similar characteristics (88 percent Tubiana grade I or II). The degree of total residual extension deficit at follow-up was similar between the weighted groups (percutaneous needle aponeurotomy, 21 degrees; limited fasciectomy, 18 degrees; p = 0.330). Furthermore, percutaneous needle aponeurotomy was associated with a lower mild complication rate (percutaneous needle aponeurotomy, 5.2 percent; limited fasciectomy, 24.3 percent; p < 0.001) and larger increases in the subdomain scores of satisfaction (p < 0.001), work performance (p < 0.001), activities of daily living (p = 0.009), and overall hand function (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter observational study found that, among patients with mildly to moderately affected digits, percutaneous needle aponeurotomy reduced contractures as effectively as limited fasciectomy does in clinical practice. Furthermore, percutaneous needle aponeurotomy provided a more rapid functional recovery and had a lower rate of mild complications. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.