ReviewHandchirurgie, Mikrochirurgie, plastische Chirurgie : Organ der Deutschsprachigen Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Handchirurgie : Organ der Deutschsprachigen Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Mikrochirurgie der Peripheren Nerven und Gefasse : Organ der V...2026
Review in Handchirurgie, Mikrochirurgie, plastische Chirurgie : Organ der Deutschsprachigen Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Handchirurgie : Organ der Deutschsprachigen Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Mikrochirurgie der Peripheren Nerven und Gefasse : Organ der V..., 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Various questionnaires are used to measure limitations in Dupuytren's disease (DD), including the Unité Rhumatologique des Affections de la Main (URAM) scale. This first Dupuytren-specific questionnaire is hardly known or used in German-speaking countries. The aim of this review is to highlight the measurement properties of the URAM scale and thus establish its use in clinical practice and research in German-speaking countries. Methods: This review was conducted using the COSMIN methodology (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Relevant and available data were searched for in various electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase), specific journals, and additional sources. The included publications were analyzed using the COSMIN checklist and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) approach. Results: The results of the 9 included publications showed that the URAM scale has good construct validity (r=0,21-0,807), excellent retest reliability (ICC=0,35-0,96), excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0,81-0,91), moderate to high responsiveness (ES: 0,56-0,96), and high specificity (86-88%), but low sensitivity (52-56%) for DD. The evidence was high in terms of responsiveness, moderate in terms of construct validity and reliability, and of low quality in terms of content validity. Conclusion: However, these data, which are based on a small number of publications, show that the well-accepted and easy-to-use URAM scale can be used as a decision-making aid and research tool for this disease.
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.