Observational studyBMC primary care2022
Psychometric qualities of the patient rated Wrist/Hand evaluation (PRWHE) in dutch primary care patients with wrist complaints.
Observational study in BMC primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative short-term effects of oscillatory mobilization and mulligan MWM on pain, disability, and range of motion among De Quervain's tenosynovitis patients- a randomized clinical trial.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2026Trial
- Early Rehabilitation Versus Conventional Approaches in Post-Traumatic Hand Injuries with Multiple Lesions: Clinical Outcomes and Future Directions.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Measurement properties of the Dutch versions of QuickDASH and PRWHE in patients with complaints of hand, wrist, forearm and elbow.Journal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation · 2024Article
- The association between pain self-efficacy and patient-reported outcome measures for hand disorders: a cross-sectional study.Hand therapy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundKnowledge on the course, disability and functionality of wrist complaints is still compendious in primary care guidelines, despite the high prevalence in primary care. Valid questionnaires can facilitate the monitoring of patients in primary care and research initiatives. In this study, we aimed to study the psychometric qualities of the Dutch version of the Patient Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation (PRWHE-DLV) among adults with (sub)acute wrist complaints in primary care.
methodsAn observational cohort of 35 adults with (sub)acute wrist complaints in Dutch primary care was established. The content validity of the PRWHE-DLV was validated by assessing the floor and ceiling effects at baseline (T0). Reproducibility was assessed by the test-retest reliability between T0 and T1 (2-5 days after T0), using the Intra-class Correlation Coefficient. The construct validity was assessed based on the correlation between the PRWHE-DLV and the Quick-DASH, Physical Component Score (SF-12), VAS-function, Physical Functioning (SF-12), VAS-pain and Bodily Pain (SF-12) at T0. Responsiveness was defined as the ability of the PRWHE-DLV to measure change 3 weeks after T0 (internal) and the relation of these changes to clinically important outcomes (external).
resultsPsychometric qualities of the PRWHE-DLV demonstrated high content validity with no floor or ceiling effects, excellent reliability (Intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.90; 95% CI 0.80-0.95), high construct validity with the validated Quick-DASH and VAS score (r = 0.85 with Quick-DASH, r = 0.75 with VAS-function and r = 0.78 with VAS-pain) and high responsiveness.
conclusionThe PRWHE-DLV provided reliable and adequate information for primary care clinical practice.
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.