Abstract
Introduction: The QuickDASH is a valid and reliable outcome measure widely used to assess the function and pain in arm, shoulder, and hand disabilities. A recent study introduced a QuickDASH 80% cut point test to gauge patients at risk of poor outcomes. However, the utility of this test has not been validated.
Purpose: To determine typical QuickDASH scores for three upper limb conditions and to test the sensitivity and specificity of the QuickDASH 80% cut point test in predicting patients at risk of poor outcomes.
Methods: This is a retrospective study with a total of 406 patient records for whom QuickDASH scores were examined. The sensitivity and specificity of the QuickDASH 80% cut point test was investigated for three acute upper limb conditions seen in hand therapy: surgical distal radius fracture, nonsurgical lateral epicondylitis, and carpal tunnel release.
Results: Typical scores were determined for three upper limb conditions. The QuickDASH 80% cut point test per upper limb condition returned poor sensitivity between 28.57% and 41.67%.
Conclusion: The results did not support the QuickDASH 80% cut point test as a predictor of final outcome in these three patient populations. Patients with the worse initial 20% scores were not correctly classified as worse 20% final scores. This study provides summary data from three upper limb conditions to provide clinicians with comparison data to establish goals and educate patients.
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
3-2018
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usx199
Related Content
Oral presentation at the 2016 Military Health System Research Symposium (abstract number: MHSRS-16-1546).
Repository Citation
Smith-Forbes, Enrique V.; Howell, Dana M.; Willoughby, Jason; Pitts, Donald G.; and Uhl, Timothy L., "A Retrospective Cohort Study of QuickDASH Scores for Three Hand Therapy Acute Upper Limb Conditions" (2018). Physical Therapy Faculty Publications. 89.
https://uknowledge.uky.edu/rehabsci_facpub/89
Notes/Citation Information
Published in Military Medicine, v. 183, March/April supplement, p. 522-529.
This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.