Purpose Patient-rated instruments are increasingly used to measure orthopaedic outcomes. However, the clinical relevance of modest score changes on such instruments is often unclear. This study was designed to define the minimal clinically important differences (MCID) of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), QuickDASH, and Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) for atraumatic conditions of the hand, wrist, and forearm. Methods One hundred two patients undergoing nonoperative treatment for isolated tendonitis, arthritis, or nerve compression syndromes from the forearm to the hand were analyzed prospectively. Patients completed the DASH, Quick DASH (subset of DASH), and PRWE at enrollment, 2 weeks (n=78 used in analysis), and 4 weeks (n=24 used in analysis) after initiating treatment by telephone. Patients reporting clinical improvement each contributed a single data point categorized as no change (n=41), minimal improvement (n=30), or marked improvement (n=31) via a validated anchor-based approach. The minimal clinically important difference was calculated as the mean change score for each outcome measure in the minimal improvement group. Results The MCID (95%CI) for the DASH was 10 (5-15). The MCID for the Quick DASH was 14 (9-20). The MCID was 14 (8-20) for the PRWE. MCID values were significantly different from changes in these outcome measures at times of either no change or marked improvement. MCID values positively correlated with baseline outcome measure scores to a greater degree than final outcome measure scores. Discussion Longitudinal changes on the DASH of 10 points, the Quick DASH of 14 points, and the PRWE of 14 points represent minimal clinically important changes. We recommend application of these MCID values for group-level analysis when conducting research and interpreting data examining groups of patients as opposed to assessing individual patients. These MCID values may provide a basis for sample size calculations for future investigation using these common patient-rated outcome measures. Level of Evidence: Diagnostic III

Ergogenic drugs are substances that are used to enhance athletic performance. These drugs include illicit substances as well as compounds that are marketed as nutritional supplements. Many such drugs have been used widely by professional and elite athletes for several decades. However, in recent years, research indicates that younger athletes are increasingly experimenting with these drugs to improve both appearance and athletic abilities. Ergogenic drugs that are commonly used by youths today include anabolic-androgenic steroids, steroid precursors (androstenedione and dehydroepiandrosterone), growth hormone, creatine, and ephedra alkaloids. Reviewing the literature to date, it is clear that children are exposed to these substances at younger ages than in years past, with use starting as early as middle school. Anabolic steroids and creatine do offer potential gains in body mass and strength but risk adverse effects to multiple organ systems. Steroid precursors, growth hormone, and ephedra alkaloids have not been proven to enhance any athletic measures, whereas they do impart many risks to their users. To combat this drug abuse, there have been recent changes in the legal status of several substances, changes in the rules of youth athletics including drug testing of high school students, and educational initiatives designed for the young athlete. This article summarizes the current literature regarding these ergogenic substances and details their use, effects, risks, and legal standing.www.pediatrics.org/cgi

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Cubital tunnel syndrome is the second most common upper extremity compressive neuropathy. In recent years, rates of surgical treatment have increased, and the popularity of in situ decompression has grown. Nonsurgical treatment, aiming to decrease both compression and traction on the ulnar nerve about the elbow, is successful in most patients with mild nerve dysfunction. Recent randomized controlled trials assessing rates of symptom resolution and ultimate success have failed to identify a preferred surgical procedure. Revision cubital tunnel surgery, most often consisting of submuscular transposition, may improve symptoms. However, ulnar nerve recovery after revision cubital tunnel surgery is less consistent than that after primary cubital tunnel surgery.