Which Outcome Measure is the Best? Evaluating Responsiveness of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire, the Michigan Hand Questionnaire and the Patient-Specific Functional Scale following Hand and Wrist Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine and compare the responsiveness of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, the Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ), and the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome, wrist pain, finger contracture, or tumor. Eighty-one subjects prospectively completed each questionnaire shortly before and 3 and 6 months after surgery. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and Newman-Keuls multiple comparison tests. Responsiveness to clinical change was calculated using standardized response means. The DASH was responsive for those with carpal tunnel syndrome (0.77), wrist pain (0.61), and tumor (0.55); the MHQ was responsive for those with carpal tunnel syndrome (1.04), wrist pain (0.87), and finger contracture (0.62); and the PSFS was responsive for those with carpal tunnel syndrome (0.65) and finger contracture (0.64). The interval during which the highest responsiveness occurred for the carpal tunnel, wrist pain, and finger contracture groups was the preoperative to 6-month period. The tumor group experienced the highest responsiveness during the preoperative to 3-month period. Our results indicate that one or more of the instruments evaluated are suitable for outcomes research related to surgery to treat carpal tunnel syndrome, wrist pain, finger contracture, and tumor.
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 | 0.013 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".