ArticleJournal of hand therapy : official journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists
The intermetacarpal distance method for assessment of active thumb radial abduction has excellent test-retest agreement, reliability, and precision in persons with non-operative thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis.
Article in Journal of hand therapy : official journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLimitations in thumb radial abduction (i.e., carpometacarpal extension) are commonly experienced by persons with thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis. Restoring this deficit is often a focus of surgical and rehabilitative interventions. Because of this, clinical measures of radial abduction are needed. The ''gold-standard'' assessment of thumb radial abduction is goniometry however it has modest reliability in persons with thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis. Conversely, the intermetacarpal distance (IMD) method of assessing radial abduction has promising reliability in healthy persons and excellent inter-rater reliability in those with thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis. However, to date, there has been no exploration of its test-retest reliability and precision in persons with thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis. Further, while multiple trials are often performed in various hand therapy assessments, it is common practice to take a single measurement of hand joint range of motion. Yet, we do not know if multiple trials might enhance the reliability of these range of motion measurements. PURPOSE: The current study aimed to (1) assess the test-retest agreement, reliability, and precision of the IMD method when measuring thumb radial abduction and (2) compare these psychometric properties when reporting one trial, the mean of two trials, and the mean of three trials of the IMD method in people with thumb carpometacarpal (CMC1) osteoarthritis (OA). STUDY
designProspective Cohort study of test-retest reliability.
methodsPurposive sampling was used to recruit adults with radiographically confirmed CMC1 OA. Participants' radial abduction was assessed using the IMD method to measure radial abduction of the affected hand on two separate occasions approximately two weeks apart. Three trials of the assessment were administered at each visit. The Bland Altman method was uses to assess agreement, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC
resultsForty persons with CMC1 OA participated. The mean difference between trials ranged from 0.21 to 0.30 mm, no significant fixed biases (p≥0.48) or proportional biases (p≥0.41) existed between mean test and retest scores, and 38/40 (95%) of test-retest differences fell within the 95% limits of agreement. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC
conclusionsThe IMD method for assessing CMC1 radial abduction has acceptable agreement, excellent test-retest reliability, and acceptable-to-excellent precision when performing one trial, the mean of two or the mean of three trials in persons with CMC1 osteoarthritis. The precision and reliability of the mean of two or three trials were non-superior however the mean of two trials yielded superior reliability and precision to that of a single trial. Changes in IMD measurements of 1.9 mm and 1.4 mm are needed to exceed measurement error when administering one or two trials respectively and change must surpass 5.3 mm and 3.8 mm to exceed clinically meaningful thresholds for one or two trials respectively. We recommend taking the mean of two trials over a single trial when using the IMD method for assessing CMC1 radial abduction in persons with CMC1 OA.
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.