Skip to main content

Recommendation for measuring clinical outcome in distal radius fractures: a core set of domains for standardized reporting in clinical practice and research

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery volume 134, pages 197–205 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

Lack of standardization of outcome measurement has hampered an evidence-based approach to clinical practice and research.

Methods

We adopted a process of reviewing evidence on current use of measures and appropriate theoretical frameworks for health and disability to inform a consensus process that was focused on deriving the minimal set of core domains in distal radius fracture.

Results

We agreed on the following seven core recommendations: (1) pain and function were regarded as the primary domains, (2) very brief measures were needed for routine administration in clinical practice, (3) these brief measures could be augmented by additional measures that provide more detail or address additional domains for clinical research, (4) measurement of pain should include measures of both intensity and frequency as core attributes, (5) a numeric pain scale, e.g. visual analogue scale or visual numeric scale or the pain subscale of the patient-reported wrist evaluation (PRWE) questionnaires were identified as reliable, valid and feasible measures to measure these concepts, (6) for function, either the Quick Disability of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire or PRWE-function subscale was identified as reliable, valid and feasible measures, and (7) a measure of participation and treatment complications should be considered core outcomes for both clinical practice and research.

Conclusion

We used a sound methodological approach to form a comprehensive foundation of content for outcomes in the area of distal radius fractures. We recommend the use of symptom and function as separate domains in the ICF core set in clinical research or practice for patients with wrist fracture. Further research is needed to provide more definitive measurement properties of measures across all domains.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. About Us (2012) Definition of Health. https://apps.who.int/aboutwho/en/definition.html. WHO. Accessed 12 April 2012

  2. Abraham A, Handoll HH, Khan T (2008) Interventions for treating wrist fractures in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD004576

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Amadio P (1996) Review of outcomes. J of Hand Surg 21:781–787

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Beaton DE, Wright JG, Katz JN (2005) Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three-item reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:1038–1046

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bellamy N, Kirwan J, Boers M et al (1997) Recommendations for a core set of outcome measures for future phase II clinical trials in knee, hip and hand osteoarthritis. Consensus development at OMERACT III. J Rhematol 24:799–802

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Changulani M, Okonkwo U, Keswani T, Kalairajah Y (2008) Outcome evaluation measures for wrist and hand: which one to choose? Int Orthop 32:1–6

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cieza A, Ewert T, Ustün TB et al (2004) Development of ICF core sets for patients with chronic conditions. J Rehabil Med 36(suppl 44):9–11

    Google Scholar 

  8. Coenen M, Cieza A, Freeman J et al (2011) Members of the consensus conference. The development of ICF Core Sets for multiple sclerosis: results of the international consensus conference. J Neurol 258:1477–1488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Finger ME, Escorpizio R, Glässel A et al (2011) ICF core set for vocational rehabilitation: results of an international consensus conference. Disabil Rehabil 34(5):429–438

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Goldhahn J, Angst F, Simmen BR (2008) What counts: outcome assessment after distal radius fractures in aged patients. J Orthop Trauma 22:S126–S130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Green DP, O’Brien ET (1978) Open reduction of carpal dislocations: indications and operative techniques. J Hand Surg 3:250–265

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Handoll HH, Madhok R, Howe TE (2006) Rehabilitation for distal radial fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD003324

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hoang-Kim A (2010) The first international society for fracture repair and international osteoporosis foundation “osteoporosis: from evidence to action” combined symposium and working groups. Adv Orthop 2:15–18

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hoang-Kim A, Scott J, Micera G et al (2009) Functional assessment in patients with osteoporotic wrist fractures treated with external fixation: a review of randomized trials. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 129:105–111

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hoang-Kim A, Pegreffi F, Moroni A, Ladd A (2011) Measuring wrist and hand function: common scales and checklists. Injury 42:253–258

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hodsman AB, Leslie WD, Tsang JF, Gamble GD (2008) 10-year probability of recurrent fractures following wrist and other osteoporotic fractures in a large clinical cohort: an analysis from the manitoba bone density program. Arch Intern Med 10(168):2261–2267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. ICF Core Set Projects (2010) http://www.icf-research-branch.org/icf-core-sets-projects.html. ICF Research Branch website. Accessed 12 April 2012

  18. ICF Research Branch (2010) Development of ICF core sets for hand conditions. http://www.icf-research-branch.org/icf-core-sets-projects/other-health-conditions/development-of-icf-core-sets-for-hand-conditions.html. Accessed 12 April 2012

  19. Institute for Work and Health (2012) The DASH outcome measure. www.dash.iwh.on.ca. Accessed 12 April 2012

  20. Kennedy CA, Beaton DE, Solway S et al (2011) The DASH and QuickDASH outcome measures user’s manual, 3rd edn. Institute for Work and Health, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kotsis SV, Lau FH, Chung KC (2007) Responsiveness of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire and physical measurements in outcome studies of distal radius fracture treatment. J Hand Surg 32:84–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lips P, Jameson K, Bianchi ML et al (2010) Validation of the IOF quality of life questionnaire for patients with wrist fracture. Osteo Int 21:61–70

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lohr KN, Aaronson NK, Alonso J et al (1996) Evaluating quality-of-life and health status instruments: development of scientific review criteria. Clin Ther 18:979–992

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. MacDermid JC, Tottenham V (2004) Responsiveness of the disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH) and patient-rated wrist/hand evaluation (PRWHE) in evaluating change after hand therapy. J Hand Ther 17:18–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. McKay SD, MacDermid JC, Roth JH, Richards RS (2001) Assessment of complications of distal radius fractures and development of a complication checklist. J Hand Surg Am 26(5):916–922

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Michlovitz SL, LaStayo PC, Alzner S, Watson E (2001) Distal radius fractures: therapy practice patterns. J Hand Ther 14:249–257

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL et al (2010) The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 63:737–745

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Riddle DL, Stratford PW, Singh JA et al (2009) Variation in outcome measures in hip and knee arthroplasty clinical trials: a proposed approach to achieving consensus. J Rheum 36:2050–2056

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Shauver MJ, Yin H, Banerjee M et al (2011) Current and future national costs to medicare for the treatment of distal radius fracture in the elderly. J Hand Surg 36:1282–1287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Stucki G, Grimby G (2004) Foreword: applying the ICF in medicine. J Rehabil Med 36:5–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tugwell P, Boers M (1993) OMERACT conference on outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials: conclusion. J Rheum 20:590

    Google Scholar 

  32. US Food and Drug Administration (2009) Guidance for Industry Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. US department of health and human services food and drug administration. available from:www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282:pdf. Accessed 12 April 2012

  33. Vannabouathong C, Sprague S, Bhandari M (2011) Guidelines for fracture healing assessments in clinical trials. Part I: definitions and endpoint committees. Injury 42:314–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Williamson PR, Altman D, Blazeby J et al (2012) Driving up the quality and relevance of research through the use of agreed core outcomes. J Health Serv Res Policy 17:1–2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. World Health Organization (2001) International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Switzerland, Geneva, pp 10–20

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The consensus paper is the result of two workshops organized jointly by the international society for fracture repair (ISFR) and the international osteoporosis foundation (IOF) supported by unrestricted grants from Amgen, Lilly, Novartis, Pearltec, Servier, and Stryker. This manuscript was approved by the fracture working group under the committee of scientific advisors of the IOF.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Biomechanics of ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Jörg Goldhahn

  2. Mobility Program Clinical Research Unit, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Canada

    Dorcas Beaton

  3. Robert A. Chase Hand and Upper Limb Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Amy Ladd

  4. School of Rehabilitation, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

    Joy Macdermid

  5. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Institute of Medical Sciences, St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, 30 Bond Street (193-6 Yonge Street), Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada

    Amy Hoang-Kim

Authors
  1. Jörg Goldhahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dorcas Beaton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amy Ladd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joy Macdermid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Amy Hoang-Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amy Hoang-Kim.

Additional information

On behalf of the distal radius working group of ISFR and IOF.

Appendix: members of the distal radius working group of ISFR and IOF in alphabetical order

Appendix: members of the distal radius working group of ISFR and IOF in alphabetical order

F Angst (Switzerland), D Beaton (Canada), MK Chang (Switzerland), C Cooper (UK), J Goldhahn (Switzerland), A Hoang-Kim (Canada), N Hollevoet (Belgium), A Johnstone (UK), J Jupiter (US), A Ladd (US), P Lips (NL), J MacDermid (Canada), M Marks (Switzerland), B Mitlak (US), G Moeller (Switzerland), TL Müller (Switzerland), F Pegreffi (Italy), S Pennaforte (France), JE Puzas (US), D Rikli (Switzerland), D Service (Ireland), T Shisha (France), B Simmen (Switzerland), T Rozental (US), O Ulrich (Switzerland), D A Wahl (Switzerland).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goldhahn, J., Beaton, D., Ladd, A. et al. Recommendation for measuring clinical outcome in distal radius fractures: a core set of domains for standardized reporting in clinical practice and research. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134, 197–205 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-013-1767-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-013-1767-9

Keywords

  • Distal radius fracture
  • Consensus
  • Core outcome measures
  • Health measurement
  • Pain
  • Function