The patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE) and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire are patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used for clinical and research purposes. Methodological high-quality clinimetric studies that determine the measurement properties of these PROMs when used in patients with a distal radial fracture are lacking. This study aimed to validate the PRWE and DASH in Dutch patients with a displaced distal radial fracture (DRF). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used for test-retest reliability, between PROMs completed twice with a two-week interval at six to eight months after DRF. Internal consistency was determined using Cronbach’s α for the dimensions found in the factor analysis. The measurement error was expressed by the smallest detectable change (SDC). A semi-structured interview was conducted between eight and 12 weeks after DRF to assess the content validity.Objectives
Methods
Electronic forms of data collection have gained interest in recent
years. In orthopaedics, little is known about patient preference
regarding pen-and-paper or electronic questionnaires. We aimed to
determine whether patients undergoing total hip (THR) or total knee
replacement (TKR) prefer pen-and-paper or electronic questionnaires
and to identify variables that predict preference for electronic
questionnaires. We asked patients who participated in a multi-centre cohort study
investigating improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQoL)
after THR and TKR using pen-and-paper questionnaires, which mode
of questionnaire they preferred. Patient age, gender, highest completed
level of schooling, body mass index (BMI), comorbidities, indication
for joint replacement and pre-operative HRQoL were compared between
the groups preferring different modes of questionnaire. We then
performed logistic regression analyses to investigate which variables
independently predicted preference of electronic questionnaires.Objectives
Methods
Despite the fact that research fraud and misconduct are under scrutiny in the field of orthopaedic research, little systematic work has been done to uncover and characterise the underlying reasons for academic retractions in this field. The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of retractions and identify the reasons for retracted publications in the orthopaedic literature. Two reviewers independently searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (1995 to current) using MeSH keyword headings and the ‘retracted’ filter. We also searched an independent website that reports and archives retracted scientific publications (Objectives
Methods
