We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Evaluation of three methods to rate impairment in patients with complex regional pain syndrome I of one upper extremity.
Clinical Rehabilitation 2000 June
OBJECTIVE: To gain insight into the best way of obtaining an impairment rating in complex regional pain syndrome I (CRPS I) of the upper extremity. This syndrome can potentially result in permanent impairment.
DESIGN: Comparison of three evaluation methods to obtain impairment scores. Each patient was seen by one tester; two testers in total participated in the research.
SETTING: Outpatient clinic of a university hospital.
SUBJECTS: Seventy-four patients (27 men, 47 women, mean age 52 years) with CRPS I of one upper extremity.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Methods I and II were conducted according to the American Medical Association's Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment method I according to the general guidelines, and method II according to the methodology specificially described for CRPS I. Method III was developed by the Dutch Association of Neurologists. For comparison, differences between methods were plotted against their mean ratings, with the limits of agreement. Also the paired t-statistics were calculated (alpha = 0.05/3).
RESULTS: The mean difference between methods I and II was -0.7% whole body impairment, between methods II and III 8.1% and between methods I and III 7.3%. Outcomes obtained with method III differed significantly from the other outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Method I most accurately and objectively reflected the permanent impairment level resulting from CRPS I.
DESIGN: Comparison of three evaluation methods to obtain impairment scores. Each patient was seen by one tester; two testers in total participated in the research.
SETTING: Outpatient clinic of a university hospital.
SUBJECTS: Seventy-four patients (27 men, 47 women, mean age 52 years) with CRPS I of one upper extremity.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Methods I and II were conducted according to the American Medical Association's Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment method I according to the general guidelines, and method II according to the methodology specificially described for CRPS I. Method III was developed by the Dutch Association of Neurologists. For comparison, differences between methods were plotted against their mean ratings, with the limits of agreement. Also the paired t-statistics were calculated (alpha = 0.05/3).
RESULTS: The mean difference between methods I and II was -0.7% whole body impairment, between methods II and III 8.1% and between methods I and III 7.3%. Outcomes obtained with method III differed significantly from the other outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Method I most accurately and objectively reflected the permanent impairment level resulting from CRPS I.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app