Skip to main content
PMC home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2024 Dec;28(78):1–262. doi: 10.3310/KGXD8528

Collagenase injection versus limited fasciectomy surgery to treat Dupuytren's contracture in adult patients in the UK: DISC, a non-inferiority RCT and economic evaluation.

Joseph Dias, Puvan Tharmanathan, Catherine Arundel, Charlie Welch, Qi Wu, Paul Leighton, Maria Armaou, Belen Corbacho, Nick Johnson, Sophie James, John Cooke, Christopher Bainbridge, Michael Craigen, David Warwick, Samantha Brady, Lydia Flett, Judy Jones, Catherine Knowlson, Michelle Watson, Ada Keding, Catherine Hewitt, David Torgerson
PMCID: PMC11647555  PMID: 39644138

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Dupuytren's contracture is caused by nodules and cords which pull the fingers towards the palm of the hand. Treatments include limited fasciectomy surgery, collagenase injection and needle fasciotomy. There is limited evidence comparing limited fasciectomy with collagenase injection.

OBJECTIVES

To compare whether collagenase injection is not inferior to limited fasciectomy when treating Dupuytren's contracture.

DESIGN

Pragmatic, two-arm, unblinded, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial with a cost-effectiveness evaluation and nested qualitative and photographic substudies.

SETTING

Thirty-one National Health Service hospitals in England and Scotland.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with Dupuytren's contracture of ≥ 30 degrees who had not received previous treatment in the same digit.

INTERVENTIONS

Collagenase injection with manipulation 1-7 days later was compared with limited fasciectomy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the Patient Evaluation Measure score, with 1 year after treatment serving as the primary end point. A difference of 6 points in the primary end point was used as the non-inferiority margin. Secondary outcomes included: Unité Rhumatologique des Affections de la Main scale; Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire; recurrence; extension deficit and total active movement; further care/re-intervention; complications; quality-adjusted life-year; resource use; and time to function recovery.

RANDOMISATION AND BLINDING

Online central randomisation, stratified by the most affected joint, and with variable block sizes allocates participants 1 : 1 to collagenase or limited fasciectomy. Participants and clinicians were not blind to treatment allocation.

RESULTS

Between 31 July 2017 and 28 September 2021, 672 participants were recruited (n = 336 per group), of which 599 participants contributed to the primary outcome analysis (n = 285 limited fasciectomy; n = 314 collagenase). At 1 year (primary end point) there was little evidence to support rejection of the hypothesis that collagenase is inferior to limited fasciectomy. The difference in Patient Evaluation Measure score at 1 year was 5.95 (95% confidence interval 3.12 to 8.77; p = 0.49), increasing to 7.18 (95% confidence interval 4.18 to 10.88) at 2 years. The collagenase group had more complications (n = 267, 0.82 per participant) than the limited fasciectomy group (n = 177, 0.60 per participant), but limited fasciectomy participants had a greater proportion of 'moderate'/'severe' complications (5% vs. 2%). At least 54 participants (15.7%) had contracture recurrence and there was weak evidence suggesting that collagenase participants recurred more often than limited fasciectomy participants (odds ratio 1.39, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 2.63). At 1 year, collagenase had an insignificantly worse quality-adjusted life-year gain (-0.003, 95% confidence interval -0.006 to 0.0004) and a significant cost saving (-£1090, 95% confidence interval -£1139 to -£1042) than limited fasciectomy with the probability of collagenase being cost-effective exceeding 99% at willingness to pay thresholds of £20,000-£30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. At 2 years, collagenase was both significantly less effective (-0.048, 95% confidence interval -0.055 to -0.040) and less costly (-£1212, 95% confidence interval -£1276 to -£1147). The probability of collagenase being cost-effective was 72% at the £20,000 threshold but limited fasciectomy became the optimal treatment at thresholds over £25,488. The Markov model found the probability of collagenase being cost-effective at the lifetime horizon dropped below 22% at thresholds over £20,000. Semistructured qualitative interviews found that those treated with collagenase considered the outcome to be acceptable, though not perfect. The photography substudy found poor agreement between goniometry and both participant and clinician taken photographs, even after accounting for systematic differences from each method.

LIMITATIONS

Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in longer waits for Dupuytren's contracture treatment, meaning some participants could not be followed up for 2 years. This resulted in potential underestimation of Dupuytren's contracture recurrence and/or re-intervention rates, which may particularly have impacted the clinical effectiveness and long-term Markov model findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Among adults with Dupuytren's contracture, collagenase delivered in an outpatient setting is less effective but more cost-saving than limited fasciectomy. Further research is required to establish the longer-term implications of both treatments.

FUTURE WORK

Recurrence and re-intervention usually occur after 1 year, and therefore follow-up to 5 years or more could resolve whether the differences observed in the Dupuytren's interventions surgery versus collagenase trial to 2 years worsen.

STUDY REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18254597.

FUNDING

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 15/102/04) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 78. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Plain language summary

Dupuytren’s contracture happens when fibrous tissue builds up and over time bends the finger(s) into the palm, causing problems with hand function. To treat this, surgery is usually used to straighten the finger. A less intrusive alternative is an injection (collagenase), which softens the tissue after which the finger is moved to straighten it. The Dupuytren's interventions surgery versus collagenase trial recruited 672 patients who were equally and randomly assigned to have either surgery or collagenase injection. The study assessed whether the injection was as good and as safe as surgery at straightening the finger and how long the finger remained straightened. For up to 2 years after treatment, the participant’s hand function and general health were assessed. Some participants provided photographs to monitor changes to the finger, and some were asked about their experiences of Dupuytren’s contracture and treatments. We found: Hand health improved following both treatments. Initially, the injection treatment improved hand health more than surgery. However, by 1 year, surgery improved hand health more than the injection treatment. Recovery of hand function was quicker for participants who received the injection; however, they were more likely to need further treatment (i.e. further care and/or re-intervention). Participants said that the less positive longer-term outcome was acceptable for a better treatment experience. For both treatments, interviews found that participants were happy with the hand improvement they experienced at 3 months after treatment. More than half of participants had no complications, moderate or severe complications were rare, and participants who had surgery had more of these. The injection was cheaper but less effective than surgery at 1 year and was considered good value for money. However, by 2 years surgery became the better option due to its greater improvement in health benefits. Participant-taken photographs can help monitor Dupuytren’s contracture but do not give the same results as measurements taken in a clinic.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Huang C, Ogawa R. Fibroproliferative disorders and their mechanobiology. Connect Tissue Res 2012;53:187–96. https://doi.org/10.3109/03008207.2011.642035 doi: 10.3109/03008207.2011.642035. [DOI] [PubMed]
  2. Townley WA, Baker R, Sheppard N, Grobbelaar AO. Dupuytren’s contracture unfolded. BMJ 2006;332:397–400. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.332.7538.397 doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7538.397. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  3. Wilburn J, McKenna SP, Perry-Hinsley D, Bayat A. The impact of Dupuytren disease on patient activity and quality of life. J Hand Surg Am 2013;38:1209–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.03.036 doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.03.036. [DOI] [PubMed]
  4. Turesson C, Kvist J, Krevers B. Experiences of men living with Dupuytren’s disease-Consequences of the disease for hand function and daily activities. J Hand Ther 2020;33:386–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2019.04.004 doi: 10.1016/j.jht.2019.04.004. [DOI] [PubMed]
  5. Pratt AL, Byrne G. The lived experience of Dupuytren’s disease of the hand. J Clin Nurs 2009;18:1793–802. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02692.x doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02692.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  6. Gudmundsson KG, Arngrímsson R, Sigfússon N, Björnsson A, Jónsson T. Epidemiology of Dupuytren’s disease: clinical, serological, and social assessment. The Reykjavik Study. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:291–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00145-6 doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(99)00145-6. [DOI] [PubMed]
  7. Dakin H, Rombach I, Dritsaki M, Gray A, Ball C, Lamb SE, Nanchahal J. Cost-effectiveness of adalimumab for early-stage Dupuytren’s disease: an economic evaluation based on a randomized controlled trial and individual-patient simulation model. Bone Jt Open 2022;3:898–906. https://doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.311.BJO-2022-0103.R2 doi: 10.1302/2633-1462.311.BJO-2022-0103.R2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  8. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Dupuytren’s Disease: How Common is it?; 2022. URL: https://cks.nice.org.uk/topics/dupuytrens-disease/background-information/prevalence/#:~:text=Dupuytren’s%20disease%20is%20up%20to,than%2060%20years%20of%20age (accessed 9 December 2022).
  9. Rodrigues JN, Becker GW, Ball C, Zhang W, Giele H, Hobby J, et al. Surgery for Dupuytren’s contracture of the fingers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;2015:CD010143. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010143.pub2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010143.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  10. Ellis B, Bruton A, Goddard JR. Joint angle measurement: a comparative study of the reliability of goniometry and wire tracing for the hand. Clin Rehabil 1997;11:314–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/026921559701100408 doi: 10.1177/026921559701100408. [DOI] [PubMed]
  11. Peimer CA, Blazar P, Coleman S, Kaplan FT, Smith T, Lindau T. Dupuytren contracture recurrence following treatment with collagenase Clostridium histolyticum [CORDLESS (Collagenase Option for Reduction of Dupuytren Long-Term Evaluation of Safety Study)]: 5-year data. J Hand Surg Am 2015;40:1597–605. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.04.036. [DOI] [PubMed]
  12. Felici N, Marcoccio I, Giunta R, Haerle M, Leclercq C, Pajardi G, et al. Dupuytren contracture recurrence project: reaching consensus on a definition of recurrence. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 2014;46:350–4. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1394420 doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1394420. [DOI] [PubMed]
  13. Degreef I, De Smet L. Risk factors in Dupuytren’s diathesis: is recurrence after surgery predictable? Acta Orthop Belg 2011;77:27–32. [PubMed]
  14. Geoghegan L, Man J, Jain A, Price A, Gibbons E, Jerosch-Herold C, et al. Factors associated with the development, progression, and outcome of Dupuytren disease treatment: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg 2021;148:753e–63e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000008420 doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000008420. [DOI] [PubMed]
  15. Abe Y, Rokkaku T, Ofuchi S, Tokunaga S, Takahashi K, Moriya H. An objective method to evaluate the risk of recurrence and extension of Dupuytren’s disease. J Hand Surg Br 2004;29:427–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsb.2004.06.004 doi: 10.1016/j.jhsb.2004.06.004. [DOI] [PubMed]
  16. Vigroux JP, Valentin P. A natural history of Dupuytren’s contracture treated by surgical fasciectomy: the influence of diathesis (76 hands reviewed at more than 10 years). Ann Chir Main Memb Super 1992;11:367–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0753-9053(05)80272-8 doi: 10.1016/s0753-9053(05)80272-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
  17. Hindocha S, Stanley JK, Watson S, Bayat A. Dupuytren’s diathesis revisited: evaluation of prognostic indicators for risk of disease recurrence. J Hand Surg Am 2006;31:1626–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2006.09.006 doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2006.09.006. [DOI] [PubMed]
  18. Ball C, Izadi D, Verjee LS, Chan J, Nanchahal J. Systematic review of non-surgical treatments for early dupuytren’s disease. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2016;17:345. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-1200-y doi: 10.1186/s12891-016-1200-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  19. Denkler KA, Park KM, Alser O. Treatment options for Dupuytren’s disease: tips and tricks. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2022;10:e4046. https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000004046 doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000004046. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  20. Rodrigo JJ, Niebauer JJ, Brown RL, Doyle JR. Treatment of Dupuytren’s contracture. Long-term results after fasciotomy and fascial excision. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1976;58:380–7. [PubMed]
  21. Dahlin LB, Bainbridge C, Leclercq C, Gerber RA, Guerin D, Cappelleri JC, et al. Dupuytren’s disease presentation, referral pathways and resource utilisation in Europe: regional analysis of a surgeon survey and patient chart review. Int J Clin Pract 2013;67:261–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.12099 doi: 10.1111/ijcp.12099. [DOI] [PubMed]
  22. Dias J, Bainbridge C, Leclercq C, Gerber RA, Guerin D, Cappelleri JC, et al. Surgical management of Dupuytren’s contracture in Europe: regional analysis of a surgeon survey and patient chart review. Int J Clin Pract 2013;67:271–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.12106 doi: 10.1111/ijcp.12106. [DOI] [PubMed]
  23. van Rijssen AL, ter Linden H, Werker PMN. Five-Year results of a randomized clinical trial on treatment in Dupuytren’s disease: percutaneous needle fasciotomy versus limited fasciectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012;129:469–77. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31823aea95 doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31823aea95. [DOI] [PubMed]
  24. Selles RW, Zhou C, Kan HJ, Wouters RM, van Nieuwenhoven CA, Hovius SER. Percutaneous aponeurotomy and lipofilling versus limited fasciectomy for Dupuytren’s contracture: 5-Year results from a randomized clinical trial. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018;142:1523–31. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000004982 doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000004982. [DOI] [PubMed]
  25. Dias JJ, Braybrooke J. Dupuytren’s contracture: an audit of the outcomes of surgery. J Hand Surg Br 2006;31:514–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsb.2006.05.005 doi: 10.1016/j.jhsb.2006.05.005. [DOI] [PubMed]
  26. Bergovec M, Jelicic J, Oljaca A, Bilic R. Hand function and recurrence after limited fasciectomy for Dupuytren’s contracture: long-term follow-up. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2018;26. https://doi.org/10.1177/2309499018762195 doi: 10.1177/2309499018762195. [DOI] [PubMed]
  27. Hurst LC, Badalamente MA, Hentz VR, Hotchkiss RN, Kaplan FTD, Meals RA, et al.; CORD I Study Group. Injectable collagenase Clostridium histolyticum for Dupuytren’s contracture. N Engl J Med 2009;361:968–79. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0810866 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810866. [DOI] [PubMed]
  28. European Medicines Agency. Xiapex: Summary of Product Characteristics. London: European Medicines Agency; 2011. pp. 1–34.
  29. Peimer CA, Blazar P, Coleman S, Kaplan FT, Smith T, Tursi JP, et al. Dupuytren contracture recurrence following treatment with collagenase Clostridium histolyticum (CORDLESS study): 3-year data. J Hand Surg Am 2013;38:12–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.09.028. [DOI] [PubMed]
  30. Göransson I, Brudin L, Irbe A, Turesson C. Hand function 5 years after treatment with collagenase Clostridium histolyticum injection for Dupuytren’s disease. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2021;46:985–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/17531934211002383 doi: 10.1177/17531934211002383. [DOI] [PubMed]
  31. Werlinrud JC, Hansen KL, Larsen S, Lauritsen J. Five-year results after collagenase treatment of Dupuytren disease. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2018;43:841–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1753193418790157 doi: 10.1177/1753193418790157. [DOI] [PubMed]
  32. Strömberg J. Percutaneous needle fasciotomy for Dupuytren contracture. JBJS Essent Surg Tech 2019;9:e6. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.ST.18.00047 doi: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.18.00047. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  33. van Rijssen AL, Gerbrandy FS, Ter Linden H, Klip H, Werker PM. A comparison of the direct outcomes of percutaneous needle fasciotomy and limited fasciectomy for Dupuytren’s disease: a 6-week follow-up study. J Hand Surg Am 2006;31:717–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2006.02.021 doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2006.02.021. [DOI] [PubMed]
  34. Davis TRC, Tan W, Harrison EF, Hollingworth W, Karantana A, Mills N, et al. A randomised feasibility trial comparing needle fasciotomy with limited fasciectomy treatment for Dupuytren’s contractures. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2020;6:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-019-0546-y doi: 10.1186/s40814-019-0546-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  35. Smeraglia F, Del Buono A, Maffulli N. Collagenase Clostridium histolyticum in Dupuytren’s contracture: a systematic review. Br Med Bull 2016;118:149–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldw020 doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldw020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  36. Brazzelli M, Cruickshank M, Tassie E, McNamee P, Robertson C, Elders A, et al. Collagenase Clostridium histolyticum for the treatment of Dupuytren’s contracture: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2015;19:1–202. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta19900 doi: 10.3310/hta19900. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  37. Sanjuan-Cerveró R, Carrera-Hueso FJ, Vazquez-Ferreiro P, Ramon-Barrios MA. Efficacy and adverse effects of collagenase use in the treatment of Dupuytren’s disease: a meta-analysis. Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:73–80. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.100B1.BJJ-2017-0463.R1 doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.100B1.BJJ-2017-0463.R1. [DOI] [PubMed]
  38. Räisänen MP, Karjalainen T, Göransson H, Reito A, Kautiainen H, Malmivaara A, Leppänen OV. DupuytrEn Treatment EffeCtiveness Trial (DETECT): a protocol for prospective, randomised, controlled, outcome assessor-blinded, three-armed parallel 1:1:1, multicentre trial comparing the effectiveness and cost of collagenase Clostridium histolyticum, percutaneous needle fasciotomy and limited fasciectomy as short-term and long-term treatment strategies in Dupuytren’s contracture. BMJ Open 2018;8:e019054. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019054 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019054. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  39. Nordenskjöld J, Lauritzson A, Waldén M, Kopylov P, Atroshi I. Surgical fasciectomy versus collagenase injection in treating recurrent Dupuytren disease: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2019;9:e024424. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024424 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024424. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  40. Dias J, Arundel C, Tharmanathan P, Keding A, Welch C, Corbacho B, et al. Dupuytren’s interventions surgery versus collagenase (DISC) trial: study protocol for a pragmatic, two-arm parallel-group, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. Trials 2021;22:671. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05595-w doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05595-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  41. Tubiana R, Michon J, Thomine JM. Scheme for the assessment of deformities in Dupuytren’s disease. Surg Clin North Am 1968;48:979–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0039-6109(16)38630-3 doi: 10.1016/s0039-6109(16)38630-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  42. UK Health Security Agency. Infection Prevention and Control for Seasonal Respiratory Infections in Health and Care Settings (Including SARS-CoV-2) for Winter 2021 to 2022. 2022. URL: www.gov.uk/government/publications/wuhan-novel-coronavirus-infection-prevention-and-control/covid-19-guidance-for-maintaining-services-within-health-and-care-settings-infection-prevention-and-control-recommendations (accessed 8 February 2022).
  43. Dias JJ, Singh HP, Ullah A, Bhowal B, Thompson JR. Patterns of recontracture after surgical correction of Dupuytren disease. J Hand Surg Am 2013;38:1987–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.05.038 doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.05.038. [DOI] [PubMed]
  44. Dias JJ, Bhowal B, Wildin CJ, Thompson JR. Assessing the outcome of disorders of the hand. Is the patient evaluation measure reliable, valid, responsive and without bias? J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001;83:235–40. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.83b2.10838 doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.83b2.10838. [DOI] [PubMed]
  45. Dias J, Ullah A. URAMS as a PROM for Dupuytren Contracture Patients. International Conference on Dupuytren Disease and Related Disorders, 2015, Groningen, Netherlands. abstract no. 5919.
  46. Beaudreuil J, Allard A, Zerkak D, Gerber RA, Cappelleri JC, Quintero N, et al.; URAM Study Group. Unité Rhumatologique des Affections de la Main (URAM) scale: development and validation of a tool to assess Dupuytren’s disease-specific disability. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011;63:1448–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20564 doi: 10.1002/acr.20564. [DOI] [PubMed]
  47. Chung KC, Pilsbury MS, Walters MR, Hayward RA. Reliability and validity testing of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. J Hand Surg Am 1998;23:575–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-5023(98)80042-7 doi: 10.1016/S0363-5023(98)80042-7. [DOI] [PubMed]
  48. Chung K, Hamill J, Walters M, Hayward RA. The Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ): assessment of responsiveness to clinical change. Ann Plast Surg 1999;42:619–22. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-199906000-00006 doi: 10.1097/00000637-199906000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed]
  49. EuroQol Group. EuroQol - a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9 doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  50. Williams GN, Gangel TJ, Arciero RA, Uhorchak JM, Taylor DC. Comparison of the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation method and two shoulder rating scales. Outcomes measures after shoulder surgery. Am J Sports Med 1999;27:214–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465990270021701 doi: 10.1177/03635465990270021701. [DOI] [PubMed]
  51. Dias JJ. Patient-rated Outcome Measures and Dupuytren Contracture In Werker PMN, Dias JJ, Eaton C, Reichert B, Wach W, editors. Dupuytren Disease and Related Diseases - The Cutting Edge. Switzerland: Springer; 2016.
  52. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D; CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Trials 2010;11:32. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-11-32 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-11-32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  53. Kenward MG, Roger JH. Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics 1997;53:983–97. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533558 [PubMed]
  54. White IR, Carpenter J, Horton NJ. A mean score method for sensitivity analysis to departures from the missing at random assumption in randomised trials. Sta Sin 2018;28:1985–2003. https://doi.org/10.5705/ss.202016.0308 doi: 10.5705/ss.202016.0308. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  55. Brueton VC, Tierney J, Stenning S, Harding S, Meredith S, Nazareth I, Rait G. Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013:MR000032. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000032.pub2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000032.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  56. Edwards PJ, Roberts I, Clarke MJ, DiGuiseppi C, Wentz R, Kwan I, et al. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007:MR000008. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000008.pub4 doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000008.pub3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  57. Knowlson C, Tharmanathan P, Arundel C, James S, Flett L, Gascoyne S, et al. Can learnings from the COVID-19 pandemic improve trial conduct post-pandemic? A case study of strategies used by the DISC trial. Res Methods Med Health Sci 2023;4:50–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/26320843221128296 doi: 10.1177/26320843221128296. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  58. European Medicines Agency. Clinical Safety Data Management: Definitions and Standards for Expedited Reporting. European Medicines Agency; Amsterdam, Netherlands.
  59. Liu Q, Shepherd BE, Li C, Harrell FE. Modeling continuous response variables using ordinal regression. Stat Med 2017;36:4316–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.7433 doi: 10.1002/sim.7433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  60. Bradet-Levesque I, Audet J, Roy JS, Flamand VH. Measuring functional outcome in Dupuytren’s disease: a systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures. J Hand Ther 2021;35:613–27. doi: 10.1016/j.jht.2021.04.010. [DOI] [PubMed]
  61. Witthaut J, Bushmakin AG, Gerber RA, Cappelleri JC, Le Graverand-Gastineau MP. Determining clinically important changes in range of motion in patients with Dupuytren’s Contracture: secondary analysis of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled CORD I study. Clin Drug Investig 2011;31:791–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03256918 doi: 10.1007/BF03256918. [DOI] [PubMed]
  62. Curtis LA, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care. Kent: PSSRU, University of Kent; 2020.
  63. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE Health Technology Evaluations: The Manual. 2022. URL: www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg36/chapter/introduction-to-health-technology-evaluation www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg36/chapter/introduction-to-health-technology-evaluation (accessed May 2024).
  64. Drummond M, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
  65. NHS England and NHS Improvement. 2019/20 National Cost Collection Data Publication. 22 June 2021 ed.; 2021. URL: www.england.nhs.uk/publication/2019-20-national-cost-collection-data-publication (accessed May 2024).
  66. Mehta S, Belcher HJ. A single-centre cost comparison analysis of collagenase injection versus surgical fasciectomy for Dupuytren’s contracture of the hand. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2014;67:368–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2013.12.030 doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2013.12.030. [DOI] [PubMed]
  67. NHS Digital. Hospital Admitted Patient Care Activity 2019–20. 17 Sep 2020 ed.; 2020. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/hospital-admitted-patient-care-activity (accessed May 2024).
  68. NHS Business Services Authority. Prescription Cost Analysis – England 2020/21. 10 June 2021 ed.; 2021. URL: www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/statistical-collections/prescription-cost-analysis-england (accessed May 2024).
  69. BNF. BNF 74 (British National Formulary) September 2017. London: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press; 2018.
  70. BNF. BNF 76 (British National Formulary) September 2018. London UK: Pharmaceutical Press; 2018.
  71. van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 2012;15:708–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008. [DOI] [PubMed]
  72. Richardson G, Manca A. Calculation of quality adjusted life years in the published literature: a review of methodology and transparency. Health Econ 2004;13:1203–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.901 doi: 10.1002/hec.901. [DOI] [PubMed]
  73. Feng Y, Parkin D, Devlin NJ. Assessing the performance of the EQ-VAS in the NHS PROMs programme. Qual Life Res 2014;23:977–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0537-z doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0537-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  74. Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ 2005;14:487–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.944 doi: 10.1002/hec.944. [DOI] [PubMed]
  75. Willan AR, Briggs AH, Hoch JS. Regression methods for covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis for non-censored cost-effectiveness data. Health Econ 2004;13:461–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.843 doi: 10.1002/hec.843. [DOI] [PubMed]
  76. Efron B, Tibshirani R. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability. New York: Chapman & Hall; 1993.
  77. Cameron AC, Gelbach JB, Miller DL. Bootstrap-based improvements for inference with clustered errors. Rev Econ Stat 2008;90:414–27. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.90.3.414
  78. Faria R, Gomes M, Epstein D, White IR. A guide to handling missing data in cost-effectiveness analysis conducted within randomised controlled trials. PharmacoEconomics 2014;32:1157–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0193-3 doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0193-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  79. Rubin DB. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York: Wiley; 1987.
  80. White IR, Royston P, Wood AM. Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med 2011;30:377–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4067 doi: 10.1002/sim.4067. [DOI] [PubMed]
  81. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997;35:1095–108. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002 doi: 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  82. Bainbridge C, Dahlin LB, Szczypa PP, Cappelleri JC, Guérin D, Gerber RA. Current trends in the surgical management of Dupuytren’s disease in Europe: an analysis of patient charts. Eur Orthop Traumatol 2012;3:31–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12570-012-0092-z doi: 10.1007/s12570-012-0092-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  83. Blake SN, Poelstra R, Andrinopoulou ER, Obdeijn MC, van de Oest MJW, Feitz R, et al. Return to work and associated costs after treatment for Dupuytren’s disease. Plast Reconstr Surg 2021;148:580–90. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000008224 doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000008224. [DOI] [PubMed]
  84. Atroshi I, Strandberg E, Lauritzson A, Ahlgren E, Waldén M. Costs for collagenase injections compared with fasciectomy in the treatment of Dupuytren’s contracture: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open 2014;4:e004166. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004166 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004166. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  85. Office for National Statistics. Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings Time Series of Selected Estimates. 2022. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/datasets/ashe1997to2015selectedestimates (accessed 12 December 2022).
  86. Sahemey RS, Dhillon GS, Sagoo KS, Srinivas K. Cost-effectiveness and patient outcomes of injectable collagenase to treat Dupuytren’s contracture. Cureus 2021;13:e20530. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.20530 doi: 10.7759/cureus.20530. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  87. Gerber RA, Perry R, Thompson R, Bainbridge C. Dupuytren’s contracture: a retrospective database analysis to assess clinical management and costs in England. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2011;12:73. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-12-73 doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-12-73. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  88. NHS Digital. HRG4 + 2021/22 Local Payment Grouper Application, Code to Group Workbook. 2022. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/services/national-casemix-office/downloads-groupers-and-tools/hrg4-2021-22-local-payment-grouper#:~:text=HRG4%2B%202021%2F22%20Local%20Payment%20Grouper%20application,-Download%20the%20HRG4%2B&text=The%20updated%20Grouper%20should%20be,Specialty%20and%20Treatment%20Function%20codes (accessed 29 June 2022).
  89. Noureddine H, Vejsbjerg K, Harrop JE, White MJ, Chakravarthy J, Harrison JWK. Fasciectomy under local anaesthetic and adrenaline for Dupuytren’s contracture in a community setting in the UK with a cost analysis. Bone Joint J 2020;102-B:1354–8. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.102B10.BJJ-2019-1685.R2 doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.102B10.BJJ-2019-1685.R2. [DOI] [PubMed]
  90. Drinane JJ, Gemoets D, Hoftiezer YAJ, Hoehn J, Eberlin KR. Initial treatment choice affects cost-effectiveness and reintervention rates for Dupuytren contracture: a national census among veterans affairs patients. Hand (N Y) 2022;18:885–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/15589447211072251 doi: 10.1177/15589447211072251. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  91. Baltzer H, Binhammer PA. Cost-effectiveness in the management of Dupuytren’s contracture. A Canadian cost-utility analysis of current and future management strategies. Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1094–100. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B8.31822 doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B8.31822. [DOI] [PubMed]
  92. Chen NC, Shauver MJ, Chung KC. Cost-effectiveness of open partial fasciectomy, needle aponeurotomy, and collagenase injection for dupuytren contracture. J Hand Surg Am 2011;36:1826–34.e32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2011.08.004 doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2011.08.004. [DOI] [PubMed]
  93. Office for national statistics. Deaths Registered in England and Wales: 2020 edition. 2020. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsregisteredinenglandandwalesseriesdrreferencetables (accessed 12 December 2022).
  94. Yoon AP, Kane RL, Hutton DW, Chung KC. Cost-effectiveness of recurrent Dupuytren contracture treatment. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3:e2019861–e2019861. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.19861 doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.19861. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  95. Miller DK, Homan SM. Determining transition probabilities: confusion and suggestions. Med Decis Making 1994;14:52–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9401400107 doi: 10.1177/0272989X9401400107. [DOI] [PubMed]
  96. Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making 1993;13:322–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9301300409 doi: 10.1177/0272989X9301300409. [DOI] [PubMed]
  97. Briggs A, Sculpher M, Claxton K. Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.
  98. Dritsaki M, Rivero-Arias O, Gray A, Ball C, Nanchahal J. What do we know about managing Dupuytren’s disease cost-effectively? BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2018;19:34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-1949-2 doi: 10.1186/s12891-018-1949-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  99. Fitzpatrick AV, Moltaji S, Ramji M, Martin S. Systematic Review Comparing Cost Analyses of Fasciectomy, Needle Aponeurotomy, and Collagenase Injection for Treatment of Dupuytren’s Contracture: Une analyse de couts systematique comparant la fasciectomie, l’aponevrotomie percutanee a l’aiguille et l’injection de collagenase pou traiter la maladie de Dupuytren. Plast Surg (Oakv) 2021;29:257–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/2292550320963111 doi: 10.1177/2292550320963111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  100. Zah V, Stanicic F, Ruby J, Vukicevic D, Hurley D. Real-world medicare healthcare costs of patients with Dupuytren’s contracture treated with collagenase or fasciectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2022;10:e4480. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000004480 doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000004480. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  101. Wong CR, Huynh MNQ, Fageeh R, McRae MC. Outcomes of management of recurrent Dupuytren contracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hand (N Y) 2022;17:1104–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558944721994220 doi: 10.1177/1558944721994220. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  102. Sau C, Bounthavong M, Tran JN, Wilson RL. PMS29 Cost-utility analysis of collagenase Clostridium histolyticum, limited fasciectomy, and percutaneous needle fasciotomy in Dupuytren’s contracture. Value Health 2011;14:A128–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.02.714
  103. Wagner M, Lavoie L, Hensen M, Postema R, Welner S. Economic evaluation of collagenase Clostridium histolyticum injection for the treatment of Dupuytren’s contracture in Canada. J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol 2014;1:e126.
  104. Malone DC, Armstrong EP. PMS29 cost-effectiveness of collagenase Clostridium histolyticum, limited fasciectomy, and percutaneous needle fasciotomy in the treatment of Dupuytren’s contracture. Value Health 2012;15:A38–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.03.218
  105. Zah V, Pelivanovic J, Tatovic S, Vukicevic D, Imro M, Ruby J, Hurley D. Healthcare costs and resource use of patients with Dupuytren contracture treated with collagenase Clostridium histolyticum or fasciectomy: a propensity matching analysis. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 2020;12:635–43. https://doi.org/10.2147/ceor.S269957 doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S269957. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  106. Donga P, DeKoven M, Kaplan FT, Tursi JP, Lee WC. Costs of collagenase Clostridium histolyticum and fasciectomy for Dupuytren’s contracture. Am J Pharm Ben 2015;7:24–31.
  107. Yamamoto M, Yasunaga H, Kakinoki R, Tsubokawa N, Morita A, Tanaka K, et al.; CeCORD J study Group. The CeCORD-J study on collagenase injection versus aponeurectomy for Dupuytren’s contracture compared by hand function and cost effectiveness. Sci Rep 2022;12:9094. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12966-z doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-12966-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  108. Camper SB, Divino V, Hurley D, DeKoven M. Cost per episode of care with collagenase Clostridium histolyticum versus fasciectomy for Dupuytren contracture: a real-world claims database analysis. J Hand Surg Glob Online 2019;1:57–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsg.2018.12.005
  109. Zhou C, Hovius SER, Slijper HP, Zuidam MJ, Smit X, Feitz R, Selles RW. Predictors of patient satisfaction with hand function after fasciectomy for Dupuytren’s contracture. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016;138:649–55. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000002472 doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002472. [DOI] [PubMed]
  110. Poelstra R, van Kooij YE, van der Oest MJW, Slijper HP, Hovius SER, Selles RW; Hand-Wrist Study Group. Patient’s satisfaction beyond hand function in Dupuytren’s disease: analysis of 1106 patients. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2019;45:280–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1753193419890284 doi: 10.1177/1753193419890284. [DOI] [PubMed]
  111. Kan HJ, de Bekker-Grob EW, van Marion ES, van Oijen GW, van Nieuwenhoven CA, Zhou C, et al. Patients' preferences for treatment for Dupuytren’s disease: a discrete choice experiment. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016;137:165–73. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001878 doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001878. [DOI] [PubMed]
  112. Engstrand C, Kvist J, Krevers B. Patients’ perspective on surgical intervention for Dupuytren’s disease – experiences, expectations and appraisal of results. Disabil Rehabil 2016;38:2538–49. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2015.1137981 doi: 10.3109/09638288.2015.1137981. [DOI] [PubMed]
  113. Eppler SL, Kakar S, Sheikholeslami N, Sun B, Pennell H, Kamal RN. Defining quality in hand surgery from the patient’s perspective: a qualitative analysis. J Hand Surg Am 2019;44:311–20.e314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2018.06.007 doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2018.06.007. [DOI] [PubMed]
  114. Bradley J, Warwick D. Patient satisfaction with collagenase. J Hand Surg Am 2016;41:689–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2016.03.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2016.03.003. [DOI] [PubMed]
  115. Winberg M, Turesson C. Patients’ perspectives of collagenase injection or needle fasciotomy and rehabilitation for Dupuytren disease, including hand function and occupational performance. Disabil Rehabil 2022;45:986–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2022.2046188 doi: 10.1080/09638288.2022.2046188. [DOI] [PubMed]
  116. Zuk G, Reinisch KB, Raptis DA, Fertsch S, Guggenheim M, Palma AF. Dupuytren disease: is there enough comprehensive patient information on the internet? Interact J Med Res 2017;6:e7. https://doi.org/10.2196/ijmr.7822 doi: 10.2196/ijmr.7822. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  117. Zeh S, Christalle E, Zill JM, Härter M, Block A, Scholl I. What do patients expect? Assessing patient-centredness from the patients’ perspective: an interview study. BMJ Open 2021;11:e047810. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047810 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047810. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  118. Vennedey V, Hower KI, Hillen H, Ansmann L, Kuntz L, Stock S; Cologne Research and Development Network (CoRe-Net). Patients’ perspectives of facilitators and barriers to patient-centred care: insights from qualitative patient interviews. BMJ Open 2020;10:e033449. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033449 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033449. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  119. Coulter A, Stilwell D, Kryworuchko J, Mullen PD, Ng CJ, van der Weijden T. A systematic development process for patient decision aids. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013;13:S2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-s2-s2 doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  120. Boeije H. A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Qual Quant 2002;36:391–409. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020909529486
  121. Lavrakas PJ. Purposive Sampling. Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2008.
  122. DeJonckheere M, Vaughn LM. Semistructured interviewing in primary care research: a balance of relationship and rigour. Fam Med Community Health 2019;7:e000057. https://doi.org/10.1136/fmch-2018-000057 doi: 10.1136/fmch-2018-000057. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  123. DiCicco-Bloom B, Crabtree BF. The qualitative research interview. Med Educ 2006;40:314–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  124. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3:77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  125. Turesson C, Kvist J, Krevers B. Patients’ needs during a surgical intervention process for Dupuytren’s disease. Disabil Rehabil 2019;41:666–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2017.1402095 doi: 10.1080/09638288.2017.1402095. [DOI] [PubMed]
  126. Krefter C, Marks M, Hensler S, Herren DB, Calcagni M. Complications after treating Dupuytren’s disease. A systematic literature review. Hand Surg Rehabil 2017;36:322–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hansur.2017.07.002 doi: 10.1016/j.hansur.2017.07.002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  127. Leighton PA, Brealey SD, Dias JJ. Patient experiences of scaphoid waist fractures and their treatment: a qualitative investigation. Bone Jt Open 2022;3:641–7. https://doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.38.Bjo-2022-0042.R1 doi: 10.1302/2633-1462.38.BJO-2022-0042.R1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  128. Dias J, Brealey S, Cook L, Fairhurst C, Hinde S, Leighton P, et al. Surgical fixation compared with cast immobilisation for adults with a bicortical fracture of the scaphoid waist: the SWIFFT RCT. Health Technol Assess 2020;24:1–234. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta24520 doi: 10.3310/hta24520. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  129. Office for National Statistics. Demography and Migration Data, England and Wales: Census 2021. 2022. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/demographyandmigrationdatacontent/2022-11-02 (accessed 10 January 2023).
  130. UK Government. Ethnicity Facts and Figures. 2021. URL: www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/#:~:text=Government%20data%20about%20the%20UK’s,group%20(2021%20Census%20data (accessed 9 December 2022).
  131. Office for National Statistics. Employment in the UK: April 2022. 2022. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/employmentintheuk/april2022 (accessed 9 December 2022).
  132. Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government. English Indices of Deprivation. 2019. URL: https://imd-by-postcode.opendatacommunities.org/imd/2019 (accessed 9 January 2023).
  133. Scottish Government. Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation. 2020. URL: www.gov.scot/collections/scottish-index-of-multiple-deprivation-2020/#lookupfiles (accessed 10 January 2023).
  134. Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). Smoking Statistics. 2021. URL: https://ash.org.uk/resources/view/smoking-statistics (accessed 9 December 2022).
  135. Office for National Statistics. Adult Smoking Habits in the UK: 2021. 2021. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandlifeexpectancies/bulletins/adultsmokinghabitsingreatbritain/2021#:~:text=.xlsx-,Characteristics%20of%20current%20cigarette%20smokers%20in%20the%20UK,million)%20reported%20be (accessed 10 January 2023).
  136. Burge P, Hoy G, Regan P, Milne R. Smoking, alcohol and the risk of Dupuytren’s contracture. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1997;79:206–10. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.79b2.6990 doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.79b2.6990. [DOI] [PubMed]
  137. Descatha A, Carton M, Mediouni Z, Dumontier C, Roquelaure Y, Goldberg M, et al. Association among work exposure, alcohol intake, smoking and Dupuytren’s disease in a large cohort study (GAZEL). BMJ Open 2014;4:e004214. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004214 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004214. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  138. Goldhahn S, Sawaguchi T, Audigé L, Mundi R, Hanson B, Bhandari M, Goldhahn J. Complication reporting in orthopaedic trials. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009;91:1847–53. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.01455 doi: 10.2106/JBJS.H.01455. [DOI] [PubMed]
  139. Martin RC 2nd, Brennan MF, Jaques DP. Quality of complication reporting in the surgical literature. Ann Surg 2002;235:803–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-200206000-00007 doi: 10.1097/00000658-200206000-00007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  140. McVeigh KH, Murray PM, Heckman MG, Rawal B, Peterson JJ. Accuracy and validity of goniometer and visual assessments of angular joint positions of the hand and wrist. J Hand Surg Am 2016;41:e21–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.12.014 doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.12.014. [DOI] [PubMed]
  141. Pratt AL, Ball C. What are we measuring? A critique of range of motion methods currently in use for Dupuytren’s disease and recommendations for practice. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2016;17:20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-0884-3 doi: 10.1186/s12891-016-0884-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  142. Witthaut J, Jones G, Skrepnik N, Kushner H, Houston A, Lindau TR. Efficacy and safety of collagenase Clostridium histolyticum injection for Dupuytren contracture: short-term results from 2 open-label studies. J Hand Surg Am 2013;38:2–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.10.008 doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.10.008. [DOI] [PubMed]
  143. Lee H, Eo S, Cho S, Jones NF. The surgical release of Dupuytren’s contracture using multiple transverse incisions. Arch Plast Surg 2012;39:426–30. https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2012.39.4.426 doi: 10.5999/aps.2012.39.4.426. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  144. Draviaraj KP, Chakrabarti I. Functional outcome after surgery for Dupuytren’s contracture: a prospective study. J Hand Surg Am 2004;29:804–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2004.05.005 doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2004.05.005. [DOI] [PubMed]
  145. Denkler K. Dupuytren’s fasciectomies in 60 consecutive digits using lidocaine with epinephrine and no tourniquet. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005;115:802–10. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000152420.64842.b6 doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000152420.64842.b6. [DOI] [PubMed]
  146. Hsieh C, Yun D, Bhatia AC, Hsu JT, Ruiz de Luzuriaga AM. Patient perception on the usage of smartphones for medical photography and for reference in dermatology. Dermatol Surg 2015;41:149–54. https://doi.org/10.1097/dss.0000000000000213 doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000000213. [DOI] [PubMed]
  147. Zhao JZ, Blazar PE, Mora AN, Earp BE. Range of motion measurements of the fingers via smartphone photography. Hand (N Y) 2020;15:679–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558944718820955 doi: 10.1177/1558944718820955. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  148. Smith RP, Dias JJ, Ullah A, Bhowal B. Visual and computer software-aided estimates of Dupuytren’s contractures: correlation with clinical goniometric measurements. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2009;91:296–300. https://doi.org/10.1308/003588409x359259 doi: 10.1308/003588409X359259. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  149. Georgeu GA, Mayfield S, Logan AM. Lateral digital photography with computer-aided goniometry versus standard goniometry for recording finger joint angles. J Hand Surg Br 2002;27:184–6. https://doi.org/10.1054/jhsb.2001.0692 doi: 10.1054/jhsb.2001.0692. [DOI] [PubMed]
  150. Martos-Pérez F, Martín-Escalante MD, Olalla-Sierra J, Prada-Pardal JL, García-de-Lucas MD, González-Vega R, et al. The value of telephone consultations during COVID-19 pandemic. An observational study. QJM 2021;114:715–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcab024 doi: 10.1093/qjmed/hcab024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  151. Ignatowicz A, Atherton H, Bernstein CJ, Bryce C, Court R, Sturt J, Griffiths F. Internet videoconferencing for patient-clinician consultations in long-term conditions: a review of reviews and applications in line with guidelines and recommendations. Digit Health 2019;5. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055207619845831 doi: 10.1177/2055207619845831. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  152. Abimbola S, Keelan S, Everett M, Casburn K, Mitchell M, Burchfield K, Martiniuk A. The medium, the message and the measure: a theory-driven review on the value of telehealth as a patient-facing digital health innovation. Health Econ Rev 2019;9:21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-019-0239-5 doi: 10.1186/s13561-019-0239-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  153. Irvine E, Sayed L, Johnson N, Dias J. The ability of patients to provide standardized, patient-taken photographs for the remote assessment of Dupuytren disease. Hand (N Y) 2021;18:139–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/15589447211006834 doi: 10.1177/15589447211006834. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  154. Rosset A, Spadola L, Ratib O. Osirix: an open-source software for navigating in multidimensional dicom images. J Digit Imaging 2004;17:205–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-004-1014-6 doi: 10.1007/s10278-004-1014-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  155. van Kooij YE, Fink A, Nijhuis-van der Sanden MW, Speksnijder CM. The reliability and measurement error of protractor-based goniometry of the fingers: a systematic review. J Hand Ther 2017;30:457–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2017.02.012 doi: 10.1016/j.jht.2017.02.012. [DOI] [PubMed]
  156. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999;8:135–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/096228029900800204 doi: 10.1177/096228029900800204. [DOI] [PubMed]

RESOURCES