Use of Questionnaire-Based Research in Hand Surgery.

Abstract

Questionnaire-based research is ubiquitous, and careful survey design is paramount to obtaining meaningful results. This study characterizes the use of questionnaire-based studies in the current hand surgery literature. We conducted a systematic review of questionnaire-based studies published between 2010 and 2020 in 4 major American journals. We included studies in which questionnaire results represented a primary outcome. Validation status of the survey instruments was assessed, and topics of study were categorized. Nonvalidated instruments were assessed for reporting of parameters to limit bias. Three hundred fifty-four studies were identified, including 186 (52.5%) using validated instruments, 98 (27.7%) using nonvalidated instruments, 64 (18.1%) using a combination, and 6 (1.7%) that sought to validate an instrument. Of the studies that used validated instruments, 84.9% focused on patient-reported outcomes and 15.1% focused on other patient-centered topics. In contrast, of studies that used nonvalidated instruments, 44.9% focused on physician practice, 30.6% were patient centered, and 13.3% focused on education. Among nonvalidated questionnaires, 74.5% did not report predistribution testing, 49.0% did not publish full survey questions, and 33.3% did not report response rates. Survey research is common in the hand surgery literature. Forty-six percent of examined studies included at least some nonvalidated elements. Techniques to limit bias in the design and reporting of studies based on nonvalidated surveys were not uniformly disclosed. Identified areas for improvement include (1) pilot testing to assess for question clarity; (2) publication of full texts to improve transparency; and (3) better reporting on sample selection, respondents, and nonrespondents.