Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 172

1.

The relative responsiveness and construct validity of the Spanish version of the DASH instrument for outcomes assessment in open carpal tunnel release.

Rosales RS, Diez de la Lastra I, McCabe S, Ortega Martinez JI, Hidalgo YM.

J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2009 Feb;34(1):72-5. doi: 10.1177/1753193408094156.

PMID:
19091735
2.

Comparison of responsiveness of the Japanese Society for Surgery of the Hand version of the carpal tunnel syndrome instrument to surgical treatment with DASH, SF-36, and physical findings.

Uchiyama S, Imaeda T, Toh S, Kusunose K, Sawaizumi T, Wada T, Okinaga S, Nishida J, Omokawa S; Clinical Outcomes Committee of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association.; Impairment Evaluation Committee of the Japanese Society for Surgery of the Hand..

J Orthop Sci. 2007 May;12(3):249-53.

3.

Responsiveness of the Korean version of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (K-DASH) after carpal tunnel release.

Jeon SH, Lee JH, Chung MS, Baek GH, Oh JH, Lee YH, Gong HS.

Clin Orthop Surg. 2011 Jun;3(2):147-51. doi: 10.4055/cios.2011.3.2.147.

4.

Comparative responsiveness of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire and the Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire after carpal tunnel release.

Chatterjee JS, Price PE.

J Hand Surg Am. 2009 Feb;34(2):273-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2008.10.021.

PMID:
19181227
5.
6.

Functional outcomes post carpal tunnel release: a modified replication of a previous study.

Appleby MA, Neville-Smith M, Parrott MW.

J Hand Ther. 2009 Jul-Sep;22(3):240-8; quiz 249. doi: 10.1016/j.jht.2009.03.001.

PMID:
19457636
7.
9.

Comparative responsiveness of generic versus disease-specific and weighted versus unweighted health status measures in carpal tunnel syndrome.

Bessette L, Sangha O, Kuntz KM, Keller RB, Lew RA, Fossel AH, Katz JN.

Med Care. 1998 Apr;36(4):491-502.

PMID:
9544589
10.

Responsiveness of the Dutch version of the DASH as an outcome measure for carpal tunnel syndrome.

De Smet L, De Kesel R, Degreef I, Debeer P.

J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2007 Feb;32(1):74-6.

PMID:
17123674
11.
12.

Responsiveness of the Korean version of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire after carpal tunnel release.

Wi SM, Gong HS, Bae KJ, Roh YH, Lee YH, Baek GH.

Clin Orthop Surg. 2014 Jun;6(2):203-7. doi: 10.4055/cios.2014.6.2.203.

14.

Using item response theory improved responsiveness of patient-reported outcomes measures in carpal tunnel syndrome.

Lyrén PE, Atroshi I.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Mar;65(3):325-34. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.08.009.

PMID:
22172153
15.

[Value of several examination systems in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. Comparison of Dellon computer-assisted sensation test with Mellesi hand status and Levine examination scheme].

Rab M, Schrögendorfer KF, Girsch W, Kamolz LP, Beck H, Wagner G, Schlemmer F, Högler R, Aszmann O, Frey M.

Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2001 Mar;33(2):121-8. German.

PMID:
11329890
16.
17.

Prospective, randomized trial of splinting after carpal tunnel release.

Bury TF, Akelman E, Weiss AP.

Ann Plast Surg. 1995 Jul;35(1):19-22.

PMID:
7574280
18.

Minimally invasive carpal tunnel decompression using the KnifeLight.

Hwang PY, Ho CL.

Neurosurgery. 2007 Feb;60(2 Suppl 1):ONS162-8; discussion ONS168-9.

PMID:
17297379
19.

The responsiveness of sensibility and strength tests in patients undergoing carpal tunnel decompression.

Jerosch-Herold C, Shepstone L, Miller L, Chapman P.

BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011 Oct 27;12:244. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-12-244.

20.

A Comparison of DASH, PEM and Levine questionnaires in outcome measurement of carpal tunnel release.

Zyluk A, Piotuch B.

Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2011 Jun;43(3):162-6. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1273686.

PMID:
21607899

Supplemental Content

Support Center