Psychometric Properties of Health-Related Quality of Life Instruments in Patients Undergoing Palmar Fasciectomy for Dupuytren's Disease: A Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The traditional outcome measured following treatment of Dupuytren's Disease (DD) has been digital range of motion; specifically the gain in digital extension. The outcomes research movement in the last three decades however has been advocating the measurement of outcomes from the patient's perspective using Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaires (HRQOL). Although several generic and region-specific HRQOL questionnaires exist, there is no guidance as to which one is the most appropriate for this population. The objective of this study is to evaluate the psychometric properties of three self-reported HRQOL outcome measures in patients with DD. METHODS: Patients with DD were enrolled from the practices of three plastic surgeons. Test-retest reliability, concurrent validity and responsiveness of three HRQOL questionnaires were compared in a prospective study design. The HRQOL measures included Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3), Short Form-36 (SF-36), and the Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ). RESULTS: All three measures demonstrated good test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.77-0.85). Concurrent validity was found between the HUI3 pain and dexterity attributes and SF-36 physical summary score. The sensitivity of the MHQ to detect changes in the status of the patient was found to be high (effect size = 1.14) whereas that of the SF-36 was trivial. CONCLUSIONS: The HUI3 and the MHQ seem to be reliable and valid tools to assess the HRQOL in patients with Dupuytren's Disease.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".