| Name of the Instrument/Tool | Patient Evaluation Measure (PEM) |
| First Description |
Journal Hand surgery |
| Year | 1995 |
| Domains | |
| Concept of constructs | Global assessment, Satisfaction |
| Population/Disease | Disease specific |
| Originally developed for | Carpal Tunnel Syndrome |
| Other rheumatic diseases where can be applied (only if validated) |
--- |
| Additional population with no rheumatic diseases |
No |
| Language: Originally published in | English |
| Available in Language | English |
| REFERENCE IDENTIFICATION | |
| Author/s | Macey AC, Burke FD |
| Title | Outcomes of hand surgery |
| Journal | J Hand Surg |
| Year | 1995 |
| Vol | 20 |
| Num | 6 |
| Pages | 841-855 |
| Country | --- |
| Language | English |
| Other references of interest | |
| No other References. | |
| Instrument/Tool Translations References | |
| No other References. | |
| DEVELOPER CONTACT INFORMATION | |
| Correspondence to | Macey AC |
| --- | |
| Address | Pulvertaft Hand Centre, Derby Royal Infirmary, UK |
| Website | --- |
| Available | --- |
| Links | --- |
| DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTRUMENT | |
| Type Of Measure | Questionnaire |
| Brief Description |
Presented in a conference on Outcomes of Hand Surgery organized by the audit committee of British Society for Surgery of the Hand in 1993. The questionnaire, developed in 1995 by Macey et al. consists of 3 domains: patients’ opinion on delivery of care, hand health profile, and overall assessment. The instrument has a total of 18 items that are scored using a 7-point scale. In all scales, low scores indicate positive outcomes. The authors did not report on item generation and item reduction. Similarly, there was no report on other aspects of the instrument development. |
| Number of Items | 3 Subscales 18-items |
| Range | 1-7 |
| Responses options/scale |
Yes Lower scores Better QoL |
| Developed for | Both |
| PRACTICAL APPLICATION | |
| Method of administration | Interviewer/assessor, Self-administered |
| Recommendations to score |
5 point Likert Scale |
| Score Interpretation | For each patient, a CTS-6 score was calculated as the mean of the items answered by the patient, with only 1 missing item response allowed, and would thus range from 1 (best) to 5 (worst). |
| Cut-off points | --- |
| Cut-off points applied to | --- |
| Smallest detectable change if described | --- |
| Smallest detectable change applied to | --- |
| Completion time by the patient | 0 minutes |
| Scoring time by the assessor | 0 minutes |
| Training to score | Not necessary |
| Strengths | --- |
| Limitations | Lengthy |
| OTHER COMMENTS | |
| Other Comments | --- |