Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2024 May 1;104(5):pzae033.
doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzae033.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and the Shortened Version of the DASH (QuickDASH) in People With Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Lorenzo Galardini  1 , Andrea Coppari  2 , Leonardo Pellicciari  3 , Alessandro Ugolini  4 , Daniele Piscitelli  5 , Fabio La Porta  3 , Elisabetta Bravini  6 , Stefano Vercelli  7
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and the Shortened Version of the DASH (QuickDASH) in People With Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Lorenzo Galardini et al. Phys Ther. .

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and its shortened version (ie, the QuickDASH).

Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched up to July 2022. Studies on people with upper limb musculoskeletal disorders that calculated the MCID by anchor-based methods were included. Descriptive and quantitative synthesis was used for the MCID and the minimal detectable change with 90% confidence (MDC90). Fixed-effects models and random-effect models were used for the meta-analysis. I2 statistics was computed to assess heterogeneity. The methodological quality of studies was assessed with the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments checklist for measurement error and an adaptation of the checklist for the studies on MCID proposed by Bohannon and Glenney.

Results: Twelve studies (1677 patients) were included, producing 17 MCID estimates ranging from 8.3 to 18.0 DASH points and 8.0 to 18.1 QuickDASH points. The pooled MCIDs were 11.00 DASH points (95% CI = 8.59-13.41; I2 = 0%) and 11.97 QuickDASH points (95% CI = 9.60-14.33; I2 = 0%). The pooled MDC90s were 9.04 DASH points (95% CI = 6.46-11.62; I2 = 0%) and 9.03 QuickDASH points (95% CI = 6.36-11.71; I2 = 18%). Great methodological heterogeneity in the calculation of the MCID was identified among the primary studies.

Conclusion: Reasonable MCID ranges of 12 to 14 DASH points and 12 to 15 QuickDASH points were established. The lower boundaries represent the first available measure above the pooled MDC90, and the upper limits represent the upper 95% CI of the pooled MCID.

Impact: Reasonable ranges for the MCID of 12 to 14 DASH points and 12 to 15 QuickDASH points were proposed. The lower boundaries represent the first available measure above the pooled MDC90, and the upper limits represent the upper 95% CI of the pooled MCID. Information regarding the interpretability of the 2 questionnaires was derived from very different methodologies, making it difficult to identify reliable thresholds. Now clinicians and researchers can rely on more credible data. The proposed MCIDs should be used to assess people with musculoskeletal disorders. Heterogeneity was found related particularly to the anchor levels used in the primary studies. To promote comparability of MCID values, shared rules defining the most appropriate types of anchoring will be needed in the near future.

Keywords: Clinical Relevance; Minimal Detectable Change; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Psychometrics; Responsiveness; Upper Extremity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart illustrating the study procedures. DASH = Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand; MCID = minimal clinically important difference; MIC = minimal important change; QuickDASH = Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand; UED = upper extremity disorder.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(A) Minimal detectable change (MDC) with 90% confidence (MDC90) and (B) minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. RoC = receiver operating characteristic.
Figure 3
Figure 3
(A) Minimal detectable change (MDC) with 90% confidence (MDC90) and (B) minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire. RoC = receiver operating characteristic.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2015.
    1. Macri EM, Young JJ, Ingelsrud LH et al. Meaningful thresholds for patient-reported outcomes following interventions for anterior cruciate ligament tear or traumatic meniscus injury: a systematic review for the OPTIKNEE consensus. Br J Sport Med. 2022;56:1432–1444. 10.1136/bjsports-2022-105497. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C et al. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med. Jun 1996;29:602–608. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199606)29:6<602::AID-AJIM4>3.0.CO;2-L. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Beaton DE, Wright JG, Katz JN, Upper Extremity Collaborative Group . Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1038–1046. - PubMed
    1. Alotaibi NM. The cross-cultural adaptation of the disability of arm, shoulder and hand (DASH): a systematic review. Occup Ther Int. 2008;15:178–190. 10.1002/oti.252. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms