Association of wrist and forearm range of motion measures with self-reported functional scores amongst patients with distal radius fractures: a longitudinal study

Table 3 Association of physical measures with QuickDASH scores over time^a

Physical measures	Percentile^b		Difference (95% CI)	P-value
Physical measures	25^th	75^th	Difference (95% CI)	P-value
Wrist flexion, degrees	25	45	−6.70 (−11.50, −1.89)	< 0.01
Wrist extension, degrees	35	55	−8.95 (−12.95, −4.94)	<.0001
Wrist radial deviation, degrees	10	20	−2.43 (−6.15, 1.28)	0.20
Wrist ulnar deviation, degrees	20	30	−4.06 (−7.21, −0.90)	0.01
Forearm supination, degrees	65	85	−6.57 (−9.81, −3.33)	< 0.001
Forearm pronation, degrees	65	85	−0.63 (−3.93, −2.66)	0.71
Distance to distal palmar crease (DPC)^c, cm	0	2.5	7.64 (3.60, 11.69)	< 0.001
Active thumb opposition^d	4	8	−8.90 (− 15.07, − 2.73)	< 0.01

^aResults shown are from separate multivariable generalized least-squares models for QuickDASH scores during follow-up, adjusted for age, sex, edema, hand dominance, time since first therapy session, time since fracture, and treatment center. None of the interactions between the ROM measures and time (weeks since first therapy session) were statistically significant
^bAdjusted differences in QuickDASH scores reflect a comparison between the 75th vs. the 25th percentile values of each physical measure. For example, with all covariates kept equal, patients with wrist extension at the 75th percentile (55 degrees) would have, on average, 9.0 points (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 4.9 to 13.0 points) lower QuickDASH scores than patients with wrist extension at the 25th percentile (35 degrees). This scaling is done to facilitate the interpretation and comparison of effect sizes of various ROM measures that are measured on different units
^cThe lesser the distance, the tighter the composite grip
^dUsing the modified Kapandji score

ISSN: 1471-2474