A Comparison of Nerve-Specific, Condition-Specific, and Upper Extremity-Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Patients With Carpal and Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

Abstract

Arm-, region-, tissue-, and condition-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are available to address idiopathic mononeuropathy. This study compared PROMs with varying specificities in patients with idiopathic neuropathy of the upper extremity with respect to correlations with each another, sources of variation in scores, and floor and ceiling effects. One hundred fifty patients (130 with carpal tunnel syndrome, 30 with cubital tunnel syndrome, and 10 with both conditions) completed a nerve-specific PROM (Impact of Hand Nerve Disorders), a condition-specific PROM (Boston Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Questionnaire and/or Patient-Rated Ulnar Nerve Evaluation), and an upper extremity-specific PROM (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function Upper Extremity 7). We also gathered demographic and condition-related data (side, electrodiagnostic studies present, muscle atrophy, static loss of sensibility), and patients completed questionnaires measuring self-efficacy, kinesiophobia, and symptoms of depression. Correlation of the PROMs with each another and factors accounting for their variation were assessed, as well as the number of items to complete, time to complete, and floor and ceiling effects. Pearson correlations between PROMs were moderate to strong (0.56-0.90). Self-reported symptoms of depression were best able to account for the variations in symptom intensity and activity intolerance on all PROMs (adjusted R2 between 0.09 and 0.31). The Impact of Hand Nerve Disorders is a long questionnaire and took the most time to complete. All instruments had comparable floor effects; Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function Upper Extremity had a ceiling of effect of 16%. This study adds to the evidence that specific and general PROMs correlate with each another, perhaps in part through their correlation with mental health. Based on this line of evidence and pending testing of potentially greater responsiveness in specific settings, we prefer to use a single simple, brief, and general PROM to quantify symptom intensity and activity intolerance for both routine patient care and research. Prognostic II.