Goris Nazari1, Joy C MacDermid2, James Bain3, Carolyn M Levis4, Achilleas Thoma5. 1. School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: nazarigs@mcmaster.ca. 2. School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 3. Division of Plastic Surgery, MacHANd, McMaster Medical Centre/Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 4. Division of Plastic Surgery, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 5. Division of Plastic Surgery, MacHANd, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. INTRODUCTION: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) refers to the compression neuropathy of the median nerve at the wrist. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To establish the interinstrument reliability, convergent construct validity, and the levels of agreement of health utility indexes 2 and 3 (HUI-2 and HUI-3), EuroQol 5-dimensions (EQ-5D), EuroQol-visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) and to determine the difference of these utility measures based on age and gender in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. METHODS: Seventy-four patients with a confirmed diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome completed the 3 questionnaires and EQ-VAS a month before surgery. Demographic characteristics were reported. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to assess relative interinstrument reliability. Pearson correlation coefficients (r) were used to establish convergent construct validity. Bland-Altman plots and t tests were used to describe the levels of agreement between the 4 utility measures. A 2-way analysis of variance was performed to determine the effect of age and gender on the utility measures; HUI-2, HUI-3, and EQ-5D. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.85 for HUI-3 vs HUI-2 and 0.80 for HUI-2 vs EQ-VAS. Pearson correlation coefficients ranged from 0.60 to 0.89; HUI-3 vs HUI-2: 0.89, and HUI-3 vs EQ-5D: 0.60. One-sample t test demonstrated significant differences between HUI-3 vs HUI-2, HUI-3 vs EQ-5D, and HUI-3 vs EQ-VAS measures, with mean differences of -0.12, -0.15, and -0.14, respectively. A 2-way analysis of variance test controlling for age and gender indicated neither as predictors of outcome scores. CONCLUSIONS: The HUI-3 vs HUI-2 and HUI-2 vs EQ-VAS demonstrated excellent interinstrument relative reliability measures. The HUI-3 vs HUI-2 displayed very strong convergent construct validity measures, and strong validity measures were established between the remaining utility measures. In addition, the pair-wise utility comparisons demonstrated minimal bias between HUI-2 vs EQ-5D, HUI-2 vs EQ-VAS, and EQ-VAS vs EQ-5D measures. DISCUSSION: N/A. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.
STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. INTRODUCTION:Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) refers to the compression neuropathy of the median nerve at the wrist. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To establish the interinstrument reliability, convergent construct validity, and the levels of agreement of health utility indexes 2 and 3 (HUI-2 and HUI-3), EuroQol 5-dimensions (EQ-5D), EuroQol-visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) and to determine the difference of these utility measures based on age and gender in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. METHODS: Seventy-four patients with a confirmed diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome completed the 3 questionnaires and EQ-VAS a month before surgery. Demographic characteristics were reported. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to assess relative interinstrument reliability. Pearson correlation coefficients (r) were used to establish convergent construct validity. Bland-Altman plots and t tests were used to describe the levels of agreement between the 4 utility measures. A 2-way analysis of variance was performed to determine the effect of age and gender on the utility measures; HUI-2, HUI-3, and EQ-5D. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.85 for HUI-3 vs HUI-2 and 0.80 for HUI-2 vs EQ-VAS. Pearson correlation coefficients ranged from 0.60 to 0.89; HUI-3 vs HUI-2: 0.89, and HUI-3 vs EQ-5D: 0.60. One-sample t test demonstrated significant differences between HUI-3 vs HUI-2, HUI-3 vs EQ-5D, and HUI-3 vs EQ-VAS measures, with mean differences of -0.12, -0.15, and -0.14, respectively. A 2-way analysis of variance test controlling for age and gender indicated neither as predictors of outcome scores. CONCLUSIONS: The HUI-3 vs HUI-2 and HUI-2 vs EQ-VAS demonstrated excellent interinstrument relative reliability measures. The HUI-3 vs HUI-2 displayed very strong convergent construct validity measures, and strong validity measures were established between the remaining utility measures. In addition, the pair-wise utility comparisons demonstrated minimal bias between HUI-2 vs EQ-5D, HUI-2 vs EQ-VAS, and EQ-VAS vs EQ-5D measures. DISCUSSION: N/A. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.