2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2018.07.018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Performance of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire in hand osteoarthritis

Abstract: MHQ has several unique aspects and advantages justifying its use in hand OA, including the unique assessment of work performance, aesthetics, and satisfaction. However, MHQ, AUSCAN and FIHOA appear to measure different aspects of pain and function.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

1
14
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
1
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The first found a between‐group difference of −7.5 (95% CI −12.7 to −2.4) for the MHQ overall function scale and of −6.3 (95% CI −12.2 to −0.3) for the MHQ ADL scale (corrected for age, sex, and body mass index) (104). The other study found no difference in MHQ overall function and a small difference in MHQ ADL nonerosive vs. erosive patients (median 81.3 [interquartile range {IQR} 69.8‐90.2] vs. median 76.8 [IQR 64.5‐87.9]; P = 0.04) (103). The latter study further demonstrated that MHQ overall function and ADL scales both differed statistically significantly between patients who indicated their complaints to be acceptable vs. those who indicated theirs to be unacceptable, which is in line with other function instruments.…”
Section: Michigan Hand Outcomes Quistionnairementioning
confidence: 97%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The first found a between‐group difference of −7.5 (95% CI −12.7 to −2.4) for the MHQ overall function scale and of −6.3 (95% CI −12.2 to −0.3) for the MHQ ADL scale (corrected for age, sex, and body mass index) (104). The other study found no difference in MHQ overall function and a small difference in MHQ ADL nonerosive vs. erosive patients (median 81.3 [interquartile range {IQR} 69.8‐90.2] vs. median 76.8 [IQR 64.5‐87.9]; P = 0.04) (103). The latter study further demonstrated that MHQ overall function and ADL scales both differed statistically significantly between patients who indicated their complaints to be acceptable vs. those who indicated theirs to be unacceptable, which is in line with other function instruments.…”
Section: Michigan Hand Outcomes Quistionnairementioning
confidence: 97%
“…In patients with hand OA, correlations of the MHQ overall hand function and ADL scales were 0.65 and 0.81 with the AUSCAN function (103), 0.63 and 0.81 with the FIHOA (103) and 0.44 and 0.76 with the DASH (101). Correlations with grip strength were weaker (0.39 and 0.42) (103). One study in patients with RA reported correlations with a performance‐based hand function test, the JTHFT, of 0.62 and 0.74 (95).…”
Section: Michigan Hand Outcomes Quistionnairementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The MHQ is a well-established and commonly used tool for patients with RA and consists of six subscales that evaluate overall hand function, daily life activities, work performance, self-reported pain, esthetics, and satisfaction [29]. The final score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better performance, except for the pain domain, where higher scores represent more pain [30]. The MHQ has proven to be valid, reliable, and sensitive for people with hand RA, with good test-retest reliability (r = 0.66) and acceptable to excellent internal consistency (α = 0.66-0.90) [31].…”
Section: Outcomes {12} Primary Outcomesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The MHQ is a well-established and commonly used tool for patients with RA, and consists of six subscales that evaluate overall hand function, daily life activities, work performance, self-reported pain, aesthetics, and satisfaction (29). The nal score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better performance, except for the pain domain, where higher scores represent more pain (30). The MHQ has proven to be valid, reliable and sensitive for people with hand RA, with good test-retest reliability (r = 0.66) and acceptable to excellent internal consistency (α = 0.66 -0.90) (31).…”
Section: Primary Outcomesmentioning
confidence: 99%