ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Measurement Properties of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire in Patients With a Metacarpal or Phalangeal Fracture.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) is among the most frequently used patient-reported outcome measures to evaluate hand disorder-specific outcomes. However, despite its frequent use in patients with hand trauma, its measurement properties have mainly been evaluated in nontraumatic hand conditions. Consequently, although the MHQ is often described as a validated questionnaire, its measurement properties in patients with acute hand trauma remain unclear. In addition, the MHQ is frequently summarized as a single overall score derived from the 6 domains, often interpreted as representing "hand function." However, it is unclear whether combining these domains into a single score is appropriate. Methods: Three months postinjury data of the MHQ from 442 adult patients with metacarpal and phalangeal fractures were analyzed. Structural validity was evaluated using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Construct validity was assessed through known-group comparisons based on a priori hypotheses. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach alpha. Results: Exploratory factor analysis identified 6 factors corresponding to the original MHQ domains. Confirmatory factor analysis showed poor fit for a unidimensional model. In contrast, the 6-factor model showed better fit. Known-group comparisons confirmed 83% of the hypotheses. Domain scores showed clearer differences between clinical subgroups than the overall score. Internal consistency ranged from 0.79 to 0.95 across domains. Conclusions: The MHQ demonstrated sufficient construct validity and internal consistency for its continued use as a 6-domain instrument in patients with metacarpal and phalangeal fractures. We recommend reporting the individual domain scores, as a summarized overall score may mask clinically relevant differences between domains.
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.