Construct validity of the Patient-Rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation questionnaire (PRWHE) for nerve repair in the hand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many tools have been described for outcome assessment after nerve repair. The Patient-Rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation (PRWHE) have been shown to be valid for several hand conditions. OBJECTIVES: To explore the construct validity of the PRWHE in comparison to cold intolerance, pain and dysfunction questionnaires; the Rosén score and its subcomponents; and threshold sensibility, dynamometry and dexterity tests for nerve repair of the hand. STUDY DESIGN: Clinical measurement. METHODS: Construct validity was analysed through Pearson's correlation coefficient in a convenience sample of 32 adult patients after long-term median and ulnar nerve repair. RESULTS: The PRWHE total score was highly to moderately associated with the Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (r = 0.83), Cold Intolerance Symptom Severity (r = -0.60) and McGill's Pain (r = 0.58) questionnaires. In addition, it was correlated to motor (r = -0.55) and sensor subdomains (r = -0.56) of the Rosén score. Substantial to high associations were found for the motor, sensory impairment and dexterity test. CONCLUSIONS: The PRWHE was shown to be valid, based on construct validity, for patients with nerve repair of the hand.
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 | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".