Author
Listed:
- Hester J Kan
- Frank W Verrijp
- Steven E R Hovius
- Christianne A van Nieuwenhoven
- Dupuytren Delphi Group
- Ruud W Selles
Abstract
Purpose: One of the major determinants of Dupyutren disease (DD) treatment efficacy is recurrence of the contracture. Unfortunately, lack of agreement in the literature on what constitutes recurrence makes it nearly impossible to compare the multiple treatments alternatives available today. The aim of this study is to bring an unbiased pool of experts to agree upon what would be considered a recurrence of DD after treatment; and from that consensus establish a much-needed definition for DD recurrence. Methods: To reach an expert consensus on the definition of recurrence we used the Delphi method and invited 43 Dupuytren’s research and treatment experts from 10 countries to participate by answering a series of questionnaire rounds. After each round the answers were analyzed and the experts received a feedback report with another questionnaire round to further hone in of the definition. We defined consensus when at least 70% of the experts agreed on a topic. Results: Twenty-one experts agreed to participate in this study. After four consensus rounds, we agreed that DD recurrence should be defined as “more than 20 degrees of contracture recurrence in any treated joint at one year post-treatment compared to six weeks post-treatment”. In addition, “recurrence should be reported individually for every treated joint” and afterwards measurements should be repeated and reported yearly. Conclusion: This study provides the most comprehensive to date definition of what should be considered recurrence of DD. These standardized criteria should allow us to better evaluate the many treatment alternatives.
Suggested Citation
Hester J Kan & Frank W Verrijp & Steven E R Hovius & Christianne A van Nieuwenhoven & Dupuytren Delphi Group & Ruud W Selles, 2017.
"Recurrence of Dupuytren’s contracture: A consensus-based definition,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-9, May.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0164849
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164849
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0164849. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.