Measuring Outcomes Over Time in Distal Radius Fractures: A Comparison of Generic, Upper Extremity-Specific and Wrist-Specific Outcome Measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PurposeThis study compared the responsiveness of a generic (Short Form-36 [SF-36]), an upper extremity–specific (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand [DASH]) and a wrist-specific (Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation [PRWE]) outcome score when evaluating distal radius fractures over time.MethodsWe observed 235 patients who met the inclusion criteria of an isolated distal radius fracture treated surgically or nonsurgically and greater than age 50 years for 12 months in this prospective study. Standardized assessments were performed at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. Exclusion criteria included subjects with concomitant injuries in the ipsilateral limb and follow-up of less than 1 year. Responsiveness was evaluated through the standardized response mean and the proportion who met a minimal clinically important difference. Floor and ceiling effects were also calculated.ResultsThe standardized response mean was significantly greatest for the DASH between baseline and 6 months (P < .001), and the PRWE between both baseline and 6 months (P < .01) and 6 and 12 months (P < .01) compared with the SF-36. The proportion of patients who met a minimal clinically important difference between baseline and 6 months was greater in the PRWE, but it did not meet statistical significance (P = .12). The PRWE demonstrated a high ceiling effect at baseline (76.6%) but less so at 12 months (16.9%). The DASH demonstrated similar ceiling effects at baseline (62.9%) and 12 months (18.6%). The SF-36 had no ceiling effect.ConclusionsIn the first 6 months, both the DASH and PRWE have greater responsiveness in assessing change over the SF-36 in distal radius fractures. From 6 to 12 months, the wrist-specific PRWE has greater responsiveness over both the DASH and SF-36. This supports the use of the anatomy- and injury-specific outcome measures over the generic outcome measure in detecting change over a patient’s early recovery. However, as the time from injury increases, the absence of a ceiling effect from the generic outcome measure may become more useful.Clinical relevanceThis study demonstrates the responsiveness of the DASH, PRWE, and SF36 in assessing distal radius fractures treated in patients greater than age 50 in the first year. In establishing the most responsive measure, respondent burden can be decreased in future research. This study compared the responsiveness of a generic (Short Form-36 [SF-36]), an upper extremity–specific (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand [DASH]) and a wrist-specific (Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation [PRWE]) outcome score when evaluating distal radius fractures over time. We observed 235 patients who met the inclusion criteria of an isolated distal radius fracture treated surgically or nonsurgically and greater than age 50 years for 12 months in this prospective study. Standardized assessments were performed at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. Exclusion criteria included subjects with concomitant injuries in the ipsilateral limb and follow-up of less than 1 year. Responsiveness was evaluated through the standardized response mean and the proportion who met a minimal clinically important difference. Floor and ceiling effects were also calculated. The standardized response mean was significantly greatest for the DASH between baseline and 6 months (P < .001), and the PRWE between both baseline and 6 months (P < .01) and 6 and 12 months (P < .01) compared with the SF-36. The proportion of patients who met a minimal clinically important difference between baseline and 6 months was greater in the PRWE, but it did not meet statistical significance (P = .12). The PRWE demonstrated a high ceiling effect at baseline (76.6%) but less so at 12 months (16.9%). The DASH demonstrated similar ceiling effects at baseline (62.9%) and 12 months (18.6%). The SF-36 had no ceiling effect. In the first 6 months, both the DASH and PRWE have greater responsiveness in assessing change over the SF-36 in distal radius fractures. From 6 to 12 months, the wrist-specific PRWE has greater responsiveness over both the DASH and SF-36. This supports the use of the anatomy- and injury-specific outcome measures over the generic outcome measure in detecting change over a patient’s early recovery. However, as the time from injury increases, the absence of a ceiling effect from the generic outcome measure may become more useful.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".