It would be useful if it were possible for the patients to recreate their pre-operative QuickDASH scores in audits where this score had not been recorded before surgery. We assessed the accuracy of remembered pre-operative QuickDASH scores among 229 consecutive patients and the value of a previously developed algorithm for correcting these scores. Real pre-operative scores and remembered pre-operative scores were compared after a mean of 21 months. Furthermore, the scores of a subgroup of 79 patients with carpal tunnel syndrome, subacromial impingement, thumb basal joint arthrosis or Dupuytren's contracture were corrected using an algorithm. The mean difference between remembered and real pre-operative scores for all patients showed heteroscedacity in the Bland-Altman plot. The scores of the 79 sub-analysis patients were homoscedastic. The mean difference between remembered and real pre-operative scores was 9 (SD 16, SEM 1.85). Correcting the scores of the sub-group patients using our algorithm decreased the variation only moderately. The remembered pre-operative score is too inaccurate to be useful in individual patients, also when using our algorithm. However, subtracting nine from the mean remembered pre-operative score in a group of patients with any of the above diagnoses gives the real pre-operative score within the 95% confidence interval of four above and four below the real score.
Background In clinical audits in which preoperative visual analog scale (VAS) scores were not recorded, it would be useful if such scores could be re-created at the time of review. Patients and Methods We recorded VAS score for pain during the past week before surgery for 245 consecutive hand-surgery patients scheduled for planned surgery during a 6-month period. A total of 30 patients who refused to participate or were unable to respond were excluded. The remaining 215 patients were contacted after 21 months and asked to furnish a new VAS score of the pain they remembered to have had during the last week before surgery. Responses were analyzed with a Bland-Altman plot. Results One hundred and thirty-one (61%) of the patients responded. The mean remembered preoperative score was higher than the mean real preoperative score in all diagnosis groups. The mean difference was 10 mm (standard deviation: 22 mm; standard error of the mean: 2 mm). The lower and upper limits of 95% agreement for individual scores were -33 and 53 mm, whereas the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence interval of the mean were 6 and 14 mm. Conclusion It may be possible to predict the mean real preoperative VAS score in groups of patients with accuracy using the remembered preoperative score. In individual patients, remembered preoperative VAS scores are far too inaccurate to be of value. However, real preoperative scores should be used whenever possible.
In clinical audits where pre-operative patient-rated wrist and hand evaluation (PRWHE) scores were not recorded, it would be useful if such scores could be recreated at the time of review. We recorded a PRWHE score during the last week before surgery for 143 patients. They were contacted after 21 months and asked to furnish a new PRWHE of the state they were in during the last week before surgery. 80 (56%) of the patients responded. The mean difference was 10 (SD: 20; SEM: 2) higher remembered pre-operative score. The limits of 95% agreement for individual scores were -29 and 50, while the 95% confidence interval of the mean was 6-15. If 10 is subtracted from the mean remembered preoperative score of a group of patients, the real pre-operative score will with 95% confidence be this score plus/minus 4. Remembered pre-operative PRWHE scores are far too inaccurate to be of value in individual patients. It may be possible to predict the mean real pre-operative PRWHE score in groups of patients with useful accuracy using the remembered pre-operative score.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.