ArticleJournal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation2024
Measurement properties of the Dutch versions of QuickDASH and PRWHE in patients with complaints of hand, wrist, forearm and elbow.
Article in Journal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Shortened Upper Extremity Functional Capacity Evaluation for Patients with Complaints of Hand, Wrist, Forearm, and Elbow: Composition and Assessment of Construct Validity and Test-Retest Reliability.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Challenges in Measuring Outcomes in the Wrist.Journal of wrist surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) and Patient Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation (PRWHE) are commonly used questionnaires to assess patient-reported hand function. Information about the measurement properties of the Dutch versions is scarce.
objectiveTo gain insight into the measurement properties of the Dutch language versions of the QuickDASH and the PRWHE in patients with (non)specific complaints of the hand, wrist, forearm and elbow.
methodsInternal consistency, construct validity, test-retest reliability, responsiveness, and floor and ceiling effects were assessed according to COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) recommendations.
resultsQuestionnaires were filled out by 132 patients. Internal consistency of QuickDASH (Cronbach's α= 0.92) and PRWHE (Cronbach's α= 0.97) was high. Predefined hypotheses for construct validity were not confirmed for 75% for both QuickDASH and PRWHE (accordance with 62% of predefined hypotheses for both questionnaires). Test-retest reliability of QuickDASH (ICC = 0.90) and PRWHE (ICC = 0.87) was good. Both QuickDASH (AUC = 0.84) and PRWHE (AUC = 0.80) showed good responsiveness. No floor or ceiling effects were present.
conclusionsMeasurement properties of the Dutch language versions of the QuickDASH and the PRWHE, applied to patients with (non)specific complaints of the hand, wrist, forearm and elbow, were very similar. Test-retest reliability and responsiveness were good for both QuickDASH and PRWHE. Construct validity could not be demonstrated sufficiently.
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.