Remembered preoperative Quick disabilities of the arm,shoulder and hand (QuickDASH) scores

Abstract

The Quick disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (QuickDASH) patient-reported outcome measure is frequently used to assess disabilities and symptoms of the upper extremity. This study compares real preoperative QuickDASH scores and remembered preoperative QuickDASH scores. Remembered preoperative QuickDASH scores were obtained 45 months (39–67) after surgery. Patient material consisted of 160 patients operated for Dupuytren’s contracture, carpal tunnel syndrome, thumb basal joint arthrosis, and shoulder pain. All patients had completed QuickDASH questionnaires before surgery. Paired T-tests, linear mixed models, and limits of agreement were used for analyses. There was a significant difference between remembered and real preoperative scores (mean 7.6, SD 15.6; SEM 1.2). Neither diagnosis, age, gender, nor time between surgery and review influenced the difference significantly. A linear mixed model was constructed to investigate the ability to retrospectively predict preoperative QuickDASH scores. Remembered preoperative QuickDASH cannot be used in individual patients because of the high inaccuracy.

Level of evidence: III

Keywords

QuickDASH preoperative remembered agreement

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

Ketchersid

Tan

Calfee

Howard

Minimal clinically important differences on the DASH, Quick-DASH and PRWE. J Hand Surg Am. 2012, 37: 17.

Angst

Goldhahn

Drerup

Flury

Schwyzer

Simmen

BR.

How sharp is the short QuickDASH? A refined content and validity analysis of the short form of the disabilities of the shoulder, arm and hand questionnaire in the strata of symptoms and function and specific joint conditions. Qual Life Res. 2009, 18: 1043–51.

Beaton

Wright

Katz

JN.

Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005, 87: 1038–46.

Bland

Altman

DG.

Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986, 1: 307–10.

Bland

Altman

DG.

A note on the use of the intraclass correlation coefficient in the evaluation of agreement between two methods of measurement. Comput Biol Med. 1990, 20: 337–40.

Fayad

Lefevre-Colau

Gautheron

, et al. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the French version of the questionnaire Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand in shoulder disorders. Man Ther. 2009, 14: 206–12.

Franchignoni

Vercelli

Giordano

Sartorio

Bravini

Ferriero

Minimal clinically important difference of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand outcome measure (DASH) and its shortened version (QuickDASH). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014, 44: 30–9.

Gabel

Yelland

Melloh

Burkett

A modified QuickDASH-9 provides a valid outcome instrument for upper limb function. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009, 10: 161.

Gummesson

Ward

Atroshi

The shortened disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (QuickDASH): validity and reliability based on responses within the full-length DASH. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006, 7: 44.

10.

Hudak

Amadio

Bombardier

. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med. 1996, 29: 602–8.

11.

Kennedy

Beaton

Smith

, et al. Measurement properties of the QuickDASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) outcome measure and cross-cultural adaptations of the QuickDASH: a systematic review. Qual Life Res. 2013, 22: 2509–47.

12.

Kennedy

Beaton

Solway

McConnell

Bombardier

The DASH and QuickDASH Outcome Measure User’s Manual, 3rd edn. Toronto, Institute for Work and Health, 2011.

13.

London

Stepan

Boyer

Calfee

RP.

Performance characteristics of the verbal QuickDASH. J Hand Surg Am. 2014, 39: 100–7.

14.

Mintken

Glynn

Cleland

JA.

Psychometric properties of the shortened disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire (QuickDASH) and numeric pain rating scale in patients with shoulder pain. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009, 18: 920–6.

15.

Polson

Reid

McNair

Larmer

Responsiveness, minimal importance difference and minimal detectable change scores of the shortened disability arm shoulder hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire. Man Ther. 2010, 15: 404–7.

16.

Rea

Parker

RA.

Designing and Conducting Survey Research: a Comprehensive Guide, 4th edn. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 2014.

17.

Reynolds

Thirkannad

The Recall DASH score – a novel research tool. Hand Surg. 2013, 18: 11–4.

18.

Rodrigues

Zhang

Scammell

, et al. Validity of the disability of the arm, shoulder and hand patient-reported outcome measure (DASH) and the Quickdash when used in Dupuytren’s disease. J Hand Surg Eur. 2016, 41: 589–99.

19.

Rodrigues

Mabvuure

Nikkah

Shariff

Davis

TRC

. Minimal important changes and differences in elective hand surgery. J Hand Surg Eur. 2015, 40: 900–12.

20.

Sorensen

Howard

Tan

Ketchersid

Calfee

RP.

Minimal clinically important differences of 3 patient-rated outcomes instruments. J Hand Surg Am. 2013, 38: 641–9.

21.

Stepan

London

Boyer

Calfee

RP.

Accuracy of patient recall of hand and elbow disability on the QuickDASH questionnaire over a two-year period. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013, 95: e176.

22.

Zaki

Bulgiba

Ismail

NA.

Statistical methods used to test for agreement of medical instruments measuring continuous variables in method comparison studies: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2012, 7: e37908.