Resumo Objetivo Realizar a tradução, adaptação cultural e validação do questionário Thumb Disability Exam (TDX) para o português brasileiro. >Método O questionário foi traduzido, com tradução reversa. As traduções foram avaliadas e sintetizadas por um comitê, chegando ao THUMB DISABILITY EXAM - BRASIL (TDX-BR). Foram selecionados 31 pacientes com diagnóstico de rizartrose que responderam ao questionário. Foram avaliados parâmetros de qualidade, como consistência interna, reprodutibilidade e efeito teto e piso. Resultados Os questionários foram traduzidos e adaptados conforme protocolos definidos. A consistência interna, através do coeficiente α de Cronbach para o TDX-BR foi de 0,962. A confiabilidade do questionário, através do coeficiente de correlação intraclasse (CCI) também se mostrou bastante elevada, com κ = 0,953 (0,947-0,959). A concordância, medida através do erro padrão de medição manteve-se com valores padronizados < 5%. Não houve efeito teto e piso. Conclusão Através de metodologia específica, consideramos o TDX-BR como traduzido e válido para a língua portuguesa do Brasil.

Abstract Objective To perform the translation, cultural adaptation and validation of the Thumb Disability Exam (TDX) questionnaire into Brazilian Portuguese. Method The questionnaire was translated, with reverse translation. The translations were evaluated and synthesized by a committee, resulting in the THUMB DISABILITY EXAM - BRASIL (TDX-BR). A total of 31 patients diagnosed with rhizarthrosis were selected and answered the questionnaire. Quality parameters were evaluated, such as internal consistency, reproducibility and ceiling and floor effect. Results The questionnaires were translated and adapted according to defined protocols. Internal consistency, through the Cronbach α coefficient for the TDX-BR, was 0.962. The reliability of the questionnaire, through intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC )also proved to be quite high, with κ = 0.953 (0.947-0.959). Agreement, measured using the standard error of measurement, remained with standard values < 5%. There was no ceiling and floor effect. Conclusion Through specific methodology, we consider TDX-BR as translated and valid for the Portuguese language of Brazil.

Abstract Background: Osteoarthritis is the most common form of hand arthritis and arthritis of the carpometacarpal joint of the thumb is a potentially limiting disease. There is no homogeneity in the evaluation of outcomes for the rhizarthrosis treatment. In an attempt to standardize the evaluation of results, some subjective questionnaires, non-specific, were used to evaluate rhizarthrosis. Trapeziometacarpal Arthrosis Symptoms and Disability (TASD) was described by Becker et al.with the purpose of evaluating symptom intensity and degree of disability, as to compare results after treatment. Our objective is to translate, validate and do the cultural adaptation of the questionnaire TASD into the Brazilian Portuguese. Methods: The questionnaire was translated, with reverse translation. The translations were evaluated and synthesized by a committee, arriving at TASD-BR. Thirty-one patients with a diagnosis of rhizarthrosis answered the questionnaire. We evaluated, the internal consistency, reliability, agreement and ceiling and floor effect for validation. Results: The questionnaires were translated and adapted according to defined protocols. The internal consistency, through Cronbach's α coefficient for TASD-BR, was 0.927. The questionnaire's reliability, through the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient, was also shown to be quite high, with κ = 0.961 (0.954–0.967). The agreement, measured through the Standard Error Measurement, remained with standardized values below 5%. There was no ceiling and floor effect. Conclusion: Through specific methodology we consider TASD-BR translated and valid for the Brazilian Portuguese.

RESUMO Objetivo: Avaliar a reprodutibilidade da classificação de Albertoni para dedo em martelo. Métodos: Foi feita uma avaliação por meio de questionário no qual foram avaliadas 43 radiografias em perfil da articulação interfalângica distal de dedos da mão, com lesão tipo dedo em martelo. Todas as lesões foram caracterizadas pela classificação de Albertoni, por 19 entrevistados (12 cirurgiões de mão e sete residentes). Foi então avaliada a concordância com o coeficiente Kappa generalizado, separadas por grupos - (A) avulsão tendínea; (B) fratura avulsão; (C) fratura do lábio dorsal e (D) lesão fisária - e por subgrupos (cada grupo dividido em 1 e 2). Resultados: A concordância foi excelente para o grupo A (k = 0,95 [0,93-0,97]) e manteve-se boa quando separados em A1 e A2. No grupo B, a concordância foi moderada (k = 0,42 [0,39-0,44]), e foi ruim quando separada em B1 e B2. No grupo C, a concordância foi boa (k = 0,72 [0,70-0,74]), mas quando separada em C1 e C2 se tornou moderada. No grupo D foi sempre ruim (k = 0,16 [0,14-0,19]). A concordância geral foi moderada (k = 0,57 [0,56-0,58]). Conclusão: Pela avaliação da concordância geral, a classificação de Albertoni é considerada reprodutível pelo método usado na pesquisa.

ABSTRACT Objective: To measure the reliability of Albertoni's classification for mallet finger. Methods: Agreement study. Forty-three radiographs of patients with mallet finger were assessed by 19 responders (12 hand surgeons and seven residents). Injuries were classified by Albertoni's classification. For agreement comparison, lesions were grouped as: (A) tendon avulsion; (B) avulsion fracture; (C) fracture of the dorsal lip; and (D) physis injury-and subgroups (each group divided into two subgroups). Agreement was assessed by Fleiss's modification for kappa statistics. Results: Agreement was excellent for Group A (k = 0.95 (0.93-0.97)) and remained good when separated into A1 and A2. Group B was moderate (k = 0.42 (0.39-0.44)) and poor when separated into B1 and B2. In the Group C, agreement was good (k = 0.72 (0.70-0.74)), but when separated into C1 and C2, it became moderate. Group D was always poor (k = 0.16 (0.14-0.19)). The general agreement was moderate, with (k = 0.57 (0.56-0.58)). Conclusion: Albertoni's classification evaluated for interobserver agreement is considered a reproducible classification by the method used in the research.