The performance of PROMIS computer adaptive testing for patient-reported outcomes in hip fracture surgery: a pilot study.
Computer adaptive testing
Femoral neck fractures
Geriatric trauma
Hip fractures
Intertrochanteric fractures
Outcome measures
PROMIS
Patient-reported outcomes
Journal
Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery
ISSN: 1434-3916
Titre abrégé: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9011043
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2022
Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
02
12
2019
accepted:
15
10
2020
pubmed:
4
1
2021
medline:
17
2
2022
entrez:
3
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are essential to patient-centered care in orthopaedics. PROMIS measures have demonstrated reliability, validity, responsiveness, and minimal floor and ceiling effects in various populations of patients receiving orthopaedic care but have not yet been examined in hip fracture patients. This pilot study sought to evaluate the psychometric performance of the PROMIS Physical Function (PROMIS PF) and Pain Interference (PROMIS PI) computer adaptive tests and compare these instruments with legacy outcome measures in hip fracture patients. This study included 67 patients who were 27-96 years old (median 76) and underwent osteosynthesis for a proximal femoral fracture. At 3, 6, and/or 12 months follow-up, patients completed both legacy (mHHS, SF-36-PCS, and VAS for pain) and PROMIS questionnaires (PROMIS PF and PROMIS PI). Respondent burden and floor/ceiling effects were calculated for each outcome measure. Correlation was calculated to determine concurrent validity between related constructs. A strong correlation was found between PROMIS PF and mHHS (rho = 0.715, p < 0.001) and moderately strong correlation between PROMIS PF and SF-36 PCS (rho = 0.697, p < 0.001). There was also a moderately strong correlation between the VAS and the PROMIS PI (rho = 0.641, p < 0.001). Patients who completed PROMIS PF were required to answer significantly fewer questions as compared with legacy PROMs (mHHS, SF-36). For the PROMIS measures, 1% of patients completing PROMIS PF achieved the highest allowable score while 34% of patients completing PROMIS PI achieved the lowest allowable score. Of the legacy outcome measures, 31% of patients completing the VAS for pain achieved the lowest allowable score and 7% of patients completing the mHHS achieved the highest allowable score. The results of this study support the validity of PROMIS CATs for use in hip fracture patients. The PROMIS PF was significantly correlated with SF-36 PCS and mHHS while requiring fewer question items per patient relative to the legacy outcome measures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33388889
doi: 10.1007/s00402-020-03640-y
pii: 10.1007/s00402-020-03640-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
417-424Informations de copyright
© 2021. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR et al (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012
pubmed: 17161752
Rose M, Bjorner JB, Becker J et al (2008) Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supported the expected advantages of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). J Clin Epidemiol 61:17–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.06.025
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.06.025
pubmed: 18083459
Cella D, Gershon R, Lai J-S, Choi S (2007) The future of outcomes measurement: item banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment. Qual Life Res 16:133–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9204-6
doi: 10.1007/s11136-007-9204-6
pubmed: 17401637
Brodke DJ, Saltzman CL, Brodke DS (2016) PROMIS for orthopaedic outcomes measurement. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 24:744–749. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-15-00404
doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-15-00404
pubmed: 27661391
Beckmann JT, Hung M, Bounsanga J et al (2015) Psychometric evaluation of the PROMIS physical function computerized adaptive test in comparison to the american shoulder and elbow surgeons score and simple shoulder test in patients with rotator cuff disease. J Shoulder Elb Surg 24:1961–1967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2015.06.025
doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.06.025
Ho B, Houck JR, Flemister AS et al (2016) Preoperative PROMIS scores predict postoperative success in foot and ankle patients. Foot Ankle Int 37:911–918. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100716665113
doi: 10.1177/1071100716665113
pubmed: 27530986
Kim C-Y, Wiznia DH, Averbukh L et al (2016) PROMIS computer adaptive tests compared with time to brake in patients with complex lower extremity trauma. J Orthop Trauma 30:592–596. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000000645
doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000645
pubmed: 27380397
Makhni EC, Meadows M, Hamamoto JT et al (2017) Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) in the upper extremity: the future of outcomes reporting? J Shoulder Elb Surg 26:352–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.09.054
doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.09.054
Overbeek CL, Nota SPFT, Jayakumar P et al (2015) The PROMIS physical function correlates with the QuickDASH in patients with upper extremity illness. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:311–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3840-2
doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-3840-2
pubmed: 25099262
Papuga MO, Mesfin A, Molinari R, Rubery PT (2016) Correlation of PROMIS physical function and pain CAT instruments with oswestry disability index and neck disability index in spine patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41:1153–1159. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001518
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001518
Morgan JH, Kallen MA, Okike K et al (2015) PROMIS physical function computer adaptive test compared with other upper extremity outcome measures in the evaluation of proximal humerus fractures in patients older than 60 years. J Orthop Trauma 29:257–263. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000000280
doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000280
pubmed: 26001348
Gausden EB, Levack AE, Sin DN et al (2018) Validating the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computerized adaptive tests for upper extremity fracture care. J Shoulder Elb Surg 27:1191–1197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.01.014
doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.01.014
Gausden EB, Levack A, Nwachukwu BU et al (2018) Computerized adaptive testing for patient reported outcomes in ankle fracture surgery. Foot Ankle Int. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100718782487
doi: 10.1177/1071100718782487
pubmed: 30577699
pmcid: 6521946
Rothrock NE, Kaat AJ, Vrahas MS et al (2019) Validation of PROMIS physical function instruments in patients with an orthopaedic trauma to a lower extremity. J Orthop Trauma 33:377–383. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000001493
doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001493
pubmed: 31085947
Hung M, Saltzman CL, Greene T et al (2017) Evaluating instrument responsiveness in joint function: the HOOS JR, the KOOS JR, and the PROMIS PF CAT. J Orthop Res 36:1178–1184. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.23739
doi: 10.1002/jor.23739
pubmed: 28921658
Haywood KL, Brett J, Tutton E, Staniszewska S (2017) Patient-reported outcome measures in older people with hip fracture: a systematic review of quality and acceptability. Qual Life Res 26:799–812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1424-1
doi: 10.1007/s11136-016-1424-1
pubmed: 27766515
Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM et al (1992) Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ 305:160–164
doi: 10.1136/bmj.305.6846.160
Aitken RC (1969) Measurement of feelings using visual analogue scales. Proc R Soc Med 62:989–993
pubmed: 4899510
pmcid: 1810824
Hung M, Hon SD, Cheng C et al (2014) Psychometric evaluation of the lower extremity computerized adaptive test, the modified harris hip score, and the hip outcome score. Orthop J Sport Med 2:232596711456219. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967114562191
doi: 10.1177/2325967114562191
Shoukri MM, Mohamed M, Edge VL, Victoria L (1996) Statistical methods for health sciences. CRC Press, Cambridge
Senders A, Hanes D, Bourdette D et al (2014) Reducing survey burden: feasibility and validity of PROMIS measures in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 20:1102–1111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458513517279
doi: 10.1177/1352458513517279
pubmed: 24402035
pmcid: 4087106
Hung M, Stuart AR, Higgins TF et al (2014) Computerized adaptive testing using the PROMIS physical function item bank reduces test burden with less ceiling effects compared with the short musculoskeletal function assessment in orthopaedic trauma patients. J Orthop Trauma 28:439–443. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000000059
doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000059
pubmed: 24378399
Tyser AR, Beckmann J, Franklin JD et al (2014) Evaluation of the PROMIS physical function computer adaptive test in the upper extremity. J Hand Surg Am 39:2047-2051.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.06.130
doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.06.130
pubmed: 25135249
Gausden E, Garner MR, Fabricant PD et al (2017) Do clinical outcomes correlate with bone density after open reduction and internal fixation of tibial plateau fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137:755–760. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2679-x
doi: 10.1007/s00402-017-2679-x
pubmed: 28391428
Wamper KE, Sierevelt IN, Poolman RW et al (2010) The Harris hip score: do ceiling effects limit its usefulness in orthopedics? Acta Orthop 81:703–707. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2010.537808
doi: 10.3109/17453674.2010.537808
pubmed: 21110703
pmcid: 3216080
Scott EJ, Westermann R, Glass NA et al (2018) Performance of the PROMIS in patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Orthop J Sport Med 6:2325967118774509. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967118774509
doi: 10.1177/2325967118774509
Hancock KJ, Glass N, Anthony CA et al (2017) Performance of PROMIS for healthy patients undergoing meniscal surgery. J Bone Jt Surg 99:954–958. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.00848
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.16.00848