A Systematic Review of the Measurement Properties of the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of measurement properties. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the measurement properties of the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) questionnaire. BACKGROUND: The PRWE is a region-specific outcome measure initially developed for assessing pain and function in individuals with distal radius fracture. However, subsequent research has expanded its use to other wrist/hand conditions. A systematic review of the measurement properties of the PRWE can enhance the understanding of its clinical applicability across different wrist/hand pathologies. METHODS: The MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases were searched using predefined search terms. A hand search of the bibliography of the primary studies was performed. Studies assessing at least 1 measurement property of the PRWE, either in the English version or versions in other languages, were included in this review. Two raters performed data extraction and critical appraisal of the primary studies using standardized instruments. RESULTS: A total of 22 primary studies met the inclusion criteria. The overall quality of the 22 studies ranged from 38% to 88%, with 9 scoring greater than 70%. Agreement between the raters who determined the quality of the studies was 0.75 (unweighted kappa). The measurement properties of the PRWE were summarized for different wrist/hand conditions. CONCLUSION: The PRWE is reliable, valid, and responsive across many wrist/hand conditions. Future studies should focus on determining values for the minimal detectable change and clinically important differences for the PRWE across different patient populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.140 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".