(快速)DASH工具对经皮冠状动脉介入术后上肢功能障碍的预测价值。

IF 1.8 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Patient Related Outcome Measures Pub Date : 2022-06-27 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.2147/PROM.S353895
Eva Zwaan, Elena Cheung, Alexander IJsselmuiden, Carlo Holtzer, Ton Schreuders, Marcel Kofflard, Marco Alings, J Henk Coert
{"title":"(快速)DASH工具对经皮冠状动脉介入术后上肢功能障碍的预测价值。","authors":"Eva Zwaan,&nbsp;Elena Cheung,&nbsp;Alexander IJsselmuiden,&nbsp;Carlo Holtzer,&nbsp;Ton Schreuders,&nbsp;Marcel Kofflard,&nbsp;Marco Alings,&nbsp;J Henk Coert","doi":"10.2147/PROM.S353895","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The use of the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and its shortened version, the <i>Quick</i>DASH, have been used to assess upper extremity function following a transradial percutaneous coronary intervention (TR-PCI). However, the use of these scores has not yet been validated for TR-PCI induced complications in the upper extremity. The aim of this study was to establish the validity of the DASH and the <i>Quick</i>DASH, for the assessment of upper extremity dysfunction following a transradial percutaneous coronary intervention (TR-PCI).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This study was a diagnostic retrospective analysis of the ARCUS study, of whom 440 underwent TR-PCI and 62 control patients were treated via the transfemoral approach. All participants completed the DASH and <i>Quick</i>DASH questionnaire prior to the procedure and at each follow-up visit up to six months of follow-up. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) were constructed to determine the validity of the questionnaires, using physical examinations to determine the occurrence of upper extremity dysfunction, according to the ARCUS study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At each follow-up moment, the area under the curve (AUC) showed a poor ability of the DASH and <i>Quick</i>DASH to discriminate between patients with and without upper extremity dysfunction (AUC: 0.565-0.586). There was no significant difference between the questionnaires (p > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The DASH and <i>Quick</i>DASH questionnaires are both equally incapable of discriminating between patients with and without upper extremity dysfunction following a TR-PCI. Study results suggest that the DASH and <i>Quick</i>DASH questionnaires are incapable of discerning changes in upper extremity function as a result of procedural complications following a TR-PCI vs cardiac induced activity cessation.</p>","PeriodicalId":19747,"journal":{"name":"Patient Related Outcome Measures","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/06/83/prom-13-145.PMC9249092.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Predictive Value of the <i>(Quick)</i>DASH Tool for Upper Extremity Dysfunction Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.\",\"authors\":\"Eva Zwaan,&nbsp;Elena Cheung,&nbsp;Alexander IJsselmuiden,&nbsp;Carlo Holtzer,&nbsp;Ton Schreuders,&nbsp;Marcel Kofflard,&nbsp;Marco Alings,&nbsp;J Henk Coert\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/PROM.S353895\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The use of the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and its shortened version, the <i>Quick</i>DASH, have been used to assess upper extremity function following a transradial percutaneous coronary intervention (TR-PCI). However, the use of these scores has not yet been validated for TR-PCI induced complications in the upper extremity. The aim of this study was to establish the validity of the DASH and the <i>Quick</i>DASH, for the assessment of upper extremity dysfunction following a transradial percutaneous coronary intervention (TR-PCI).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This study was a diagnostic retrospective analysis of the ARCUS study, of whom 440 underwent TR-PCI and 62 control patients were treated via the transfemoral approach. All participants completed the DASH and <i>Quick</i>DASH questionnaire prior to the procedure and at each follow-up visit up to six months of follow-up. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) were constructed to determine the validity of the questionnaires, using physical examinations to determine the occurrence of upper extremity dysfunction, according to the ARCUS study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At each follow-up moment, the area under the curve (AUC) showed a poor ability of the DASH and <i>Quick</i>DASH to discriminate between patients with and without upper extremity dysfunction (AUC: 0.565-0.586). There was no significant difference between the questionnaires (p > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The DASH and <i>Quick</i>DASH questionnaires are both equally incapable of discriminating between patients with and without upper extremity dysfunction following a TR-PCI. Study results suggest that the DASH and <i>Quick</i>DASH questionnaires are incapable of discerning changes in upper extremity function as a result of procedural complications following a TR-PCI vs cardiac induced activity cessation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19747,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Patient Related Outcome Measures\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/06/83/prom-13-145.PMC9249092.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Patient Related Outcome Measures\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S353895\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient Related Outcome Measures","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S353895","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:使用手臂、肩膀和手的残疾(DASH)问卷及其简化版本QuickDASH,用于评估经桡动脉经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(TR-PCI)后的上肢功能。然而,这些评分在TR-PCI引起的上肢并发症中的应用尚未得到验证。本研究的目的是建立DASH和QuickDASH在经桡动脉经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(TR-PCI)后上肢功能障碍评估中的有效性。患者和方法:本研究是对ARCUS研究的诊断性回顾性分析,其中440例患者接受了TR-PCI治疗,62例对照组患者经股动脉入路治疗。所有参与者在手术前和每次随访时都完成了DASH和QuickDASH问卷,随访时间长达6个月。根据ARCUS研究,构建受试者工作特征(ROC)来确定问卷的有效性,使用体格检查来确定上肢功能障碍的发生。结果:在每个随访时刻,DASH和QuickDASH的曲线下面积(AUC)显示出较差的区分上肢功能障碍患者的能力(AUC: 0.565-0.586)。问卷间差异无统计学意义(p > 0.05)。结论:DASH和QuickDASH问卷同样不能区分TR-PCI术后上肢功能障碍患者和非上肢功能障碍患者。研究结果表明,DASH和QuickDASH问卷无法识别TR-PCI与心脏诱导活动停止后的程序性并发症对上肢功能的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Predictive Value of the (Quick)DASH Tool for Upper Extremity Dysfunction Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Purpose: The use of the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and its shortened version, the QuickDASH, have been used to assess upper extremity function following a transradial percutaneous coronary intervention (TR-PCI). However, the use of these scores has not yet been validated for TR-PCI induced complications in the upper extremity. The aim of this study was to establish the validity of the DASH and the QuickDASH, for the assessment of upper extremity dysfunction following a transradial percutaneous coronary intervention (TR-PCI).

Patients and methods: This study was a diagnostic retrospective analysis of the ARCUS study, of whom 440 underwent TR-PCI and 62 control patients were treated via the transfemoral approach. All participants completed the DASH and QuickDASH questionnaire prior to the procedure and at each follow-up visit up to six months of follow-up. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) were constructed to determine the validity of the questionnaires, using physical examinations to determine the occurrence of upper extremity dysfunction, according to the ARCUS study.

Results: At each follow-up moment, the area under the curve (AUC) showed a poor ability of the DASH and QuickDASH to discriminate between patients with and without upper extremity dysfunction (AUC: 0.565-0.586). There was no significant difference between the questionnaires (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: The DASH and QuickDASH questionnaires are both equally incapable of discriminating between patients with and without upper extremity dysfunction following a TR-PCI. Study results suggest that the DASH and QuickDASH questionnaires are incapable of discerning changes in upper extremity function as a result of procedural complications following a TR-PCI vs cardiac induced activity cessation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Patient Related Outcome Measures
Patient Related Outcome Measures HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
自引率
4.80%
发文量
27
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Development and Content Validation of the Patient's Qualitative Assessment of Treatment - Real-World (PQAT-RW): An Instrument to Evaluate Benefits and Disadvantages of Treatments in Real-World Settings. Exploring Barriers to Effective COVID-19 Risk Mitigation, Recovery, and Chronic Disease Self-Management: A Qualitative Multilevel Perspective. Ultra-Low Frequency Transmitted Ultrasound Breast Imaging vs DBT (Digital Breast Tomosynthesis): A Patient-Reported Outcome Study. Systematic Literature Review of Studies Reporting Measures of Functional Outcome or Quality of Life in People with Negative Symptoms of Schizophrenia. Validation and Cultural Adaptation of the Sinhala Translation of the Cardiff Acne Disability Index (CADI).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1