Evidence Hub

The Use of ABILHAND-Kids in Children with Unilateral Congenital Below-Elbow Deficiencies and Acquired Amputation: An Italian Cross-Sectional Study

G. Della Bella, L. Santecchia, Paola Luttazi, Giordana Mariani, Lorenzo Pochiero, A. Lacopo, Caterina Delia, M. Tofani

Children, 2024

58 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Congenital or acquired hand differences, including unilateral below-elbow deficiencies, present complex challenges in pediatric rehabilitation. Surgical management and prosthetic provision represent a big challenge to find a good balance for guaranteeing optimal hand function. There is no specific assessment tool for measuring these aspects in the Italian context. The present study investigates the psychometric properties of the ABILHAND-Kids in children with congenital unilateral below-elbow deficiencies and acquired amputation of the upper limb. We measure internal consistency using Cronbach coefficient alpha and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for measuring test-retest reliability. Differences in hand function in both children with acquired or congenital diseases were also investigated. Participants to the study were 107 (49 F and 58 M) children, with a mean (SD) age of 8.88 (4.25). For test retest reliability, conducted on a sub-sample of 58 children, the ICC was 0.92, while for internal consistency, the Cronbach coefficient alpha was 0.90. We did not find statistically significant differences in scoring (p = 0.33) in the use (mean 29.25 SD 6.58) or non-use of a prosthetic device (mean 30.74 SD 7.43), while statistically significant differences were found in hand function (p < 0.01) for children who had a congenital impairment (mean 31.87 SD 6.49) and children who had an acquired amputation (mean 27.77 SD 6.60). In conclusion, the ABILHAND-Kids showed good…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 58 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free