ArticleThe Journal of hand surgery2021
The Patient Perspective on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Following Elective Hand Surgery: A Convergent Mixed-Methods Analysis.
Article in The Journal of hand surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- What Do Patients Want? Outcome Measures in a Diverse World.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2026Article
- Evaluating Patient Satisfaction Outcome After Total Knee Arthroplasty Done at Our Hospital's Joint Replacement Registry, Egypt.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2026Observational
- Assessing Physician and Patient Agreement on Whether Patient Outcomes Captured in Clinical Progress Notes Reflect Treatment Success: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of participatory medicine · 2025Article
- The Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Practice: A National Survey of Hand Surgeons.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2025Article
- A proposed paradigm shift in the management of distal radius fractures.Journal of orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Young or Old Age and Non-White Race Are Associated With Poor Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Response Compliance After Orthopaedic Surgery.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2023Review
- Comparison of patient preferences and responsiveness among common patient-reported outcome measures for hand/wrist injuries or disorders.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2023Article
- Is There Room for Individual Patient-Specified Preferences in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Revolution?Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2023Article
- Clinical Assessment of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain-A Framework Proposal Based on a Narrative Review of the Literature.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- The "STOP Pain" Questionnaire: using the Plan-Do-Study-Act model to implement a patient-family preferences-informed questionnaire into a pediatric transitional pain clinic.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have traditionally been used for research purposes, but are now being used to evaluate outcomes from the patient's perspective and inform ongoing management and quality of care. We used quantitative and qualitative approaches to evaluate the short-version Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) and the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) with regard to patient preference and measurement of patient goals and their responsiveness after treatment.
methodsPatients 18 years or older undergoing elective hand surgery received the QuickDASH and PSFS questionnaires before and at 6 weeks after surgery. Two additional questions intended to elicit patients' preferences regarding the QuickDASH and PSFS were included. Responsiveness was measured by change in pre- to postoperative score. We analyzed patients' responses to the 2 additional questions to identify themes in PROM preferences. Results from the quantitative and qualitative analyses were combined into a convergent mixed-methods (eg, quantitative and qualitative) analysis.
resultsThirty-eight patients completed preoperative questionnaires; 25 (66%) completed postoperative questionnaires. Seventeen patients (77%) preferred the PSFS, 3 (14%) had no preference, 2 (9%) preferred the QuickDASH. The average change from pre- to postoperative QuickDASH was -10 (SD, 20), and that of the PSFS was -27 (SD, 26). Ten patients (40%) reported QuickDASH score changes above the minimal clinically importance difference (MCID), 17 patients (68%) reported PSFS score changes above the MCID. Content analysis revealed 4 themes in preference for a PROM: instrument simplicity (ease of instrument understanding and completion), personalized assessment (individualization and relevance), goal directed (having measurable aims or objectives), distinct items (concrete or specific instrument items or functions).
conclusionsMost patients felt the PSFS better measured their goals because it is a simple, personalized instrument with distinct domains. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Whereas standardized PROMs may better compare across populations, physicians, or conditions, employing PROMs that address patient-specific goals may better assess aspects of care most important to patients. A combination of these 2 types of PROMs can be used to assess outcomes and inform quality of care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.