Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (8)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by BIALOCERKOWSKI, A. E.
Right arrow Articles by BAIN, G. I.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by BIALOCERKOWSKI, A. E.
Right arrow Articles by BAIN, G. I.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal for Quality in Health Care 12:149-157 (2000)
© 2000 International Society for Quality in Health Care

A systematic review of the content and quality of wrist outcome instruments

ANDREA E. BIALOCERKOWSKI1, KAREN A. GRIMMER1 and GREGORY I. BAIN2,3

1 Centre of Allied Health Research, University of South Australia
2 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Modbury Public Hospital, Modbury
3 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Trauma, Royal Adelaide Hospital, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

Objective. To assess the content and quality of published wrist outcome instruments using standardized criteria. Design. An analytical study that examined 32 wrist outcome instruments sourced from textbooks, Medline (1951 to present) and Current Contents. Main measures. The content of each instrument was classified into four categories: traditional measures (such as range of movement and strength), measures of the ability to perform daily activities, compensatory mechanisms used, and «other». Analysis included the frequency of assessment per category and the method of assessment. In addition, each instrument was graded using 13 quality criteria. Three criteria (scientific justification of the content and scoring system used, demographic utility) were considered to be essential.Results. Eighty-two per cent on instruments reviewed for this paper contained traditional measures, of which most were assessed objectively. The ability to perform specific daily activities was assessed in 31% of the instruments whereas compensatory mechanisms were evaluated in only one instrument. These variables were not assessed in a consistent manner. Using the quality scoring system derived for this study, the quality of the instruments was generally poor. Only one instrument fulfilled all of the essential criteria. Only four instruments completely satisfied more than 50% of the criteria. Conclusions. Most wrist outcome instruments neglected to assess the impact of the disorder on the individual. Outcome was generally not expressed in functional terms or in terms that were relevant to each individual. The majority of the reviewed articles had poor quality. Thus use of these instruments may prelude sensitive evaluation of the efficacy of any intervention.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Clin RehabilHome page
A. E Bialocerkowski and K. A Grimmer
Measurement of isometric wrist muscle strength - a systematic review of starting position and test protocol
Clinical Rehabilitation, July 1, 2003; 17(7): 693 - 702.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Clin RehabilHome page
A. E Bialocerkowski
Difficulties associated with wrist disorders - a qualitative study
Clinical Rehabilitation, April 1, 2002; 16(4): 429 - 440.
[Abstract] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.