Normative PROMIS Scores in Healthy Collegiate Athletes: Establishing a Target for Return to Function in the Young Adult Athlete.
PROMIS
Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System
pain interference
physical function
upper extremity
Journal
Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine
ISSN: 2325-9671
Titre abrégé: Orthop J Sports Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101620522
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2021
Aug 2021
Historique:
received:
06
01
2021
accepted:
25
01
2021
entrez:
19
8
2021
pubmed:
20
8
2021
medline:
20
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computer-adaptive testing (CAT) has been shown to be a valid and reliable means of assessing patient-reported outcomes. However, normal scores and distributions for a subset of a healthy young athletic population have not been established. To establish normative PROMIS scores for the domains of Physical Function (PF-CAT), Mobility (M-CAT), Upper Extremity Function (UE-CAT), and Pain Interference (PI-CAT) and determine the frequency of floor and ceiling effects in a population of healthy collegiate athletes. Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Healthy collegiate athletes (18-23 years of age) were prospectively enrolled to complete the 4 PROMIS CAT domains. Additionally, the athletes provided information regarding their age, sex, and sport(s). Mean scores (±SD) and identification of ceiling or floor effects were calculated. Ceiling and floor effects were considered significant if >15% of the participants obtained the highest or lowest possible score on a domain. A total of 194 healthy athletes (mean age, 19.1 years) were included in the study: 118 (60.8%) men and 76 (39.2%) women. Mean scores were 62.9 ± 6.7 for PF-CAT, 58.2 ± 4.1 for M-CAT, 57.4 ± 5.8 for UE-CAT, and 43.2 ± 6.2 for PI-CAT. Distributions of scores for M-CAT and UE-CAT indicated strong ceiling effects by 77.3% and 66.0% of the participants, respectively. In healthy athletes, the PF-CAT differed most from the expected population-based mean score (50), with the mean being >1 SD above (62.9), without a ceiling effect observed. There were no significant sex- or age-based differences on any of the PROMIS domain scores. Healthy collegiate athletes scored nearly 1 SD from population-based means for all of the domains tested. M-CAT and UE-CAT demonstrated ceiling effects in more than two-thirds of healthy athletes, which may limit their utility in this population. The PF-CAT did not demonstrate floor or ceiling effects and demonstrated differences in a young adult athletic population from the population mean. The mean PF-CAT score of 62.9 can represent a target for return of function in injured athletes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computer-adaptive testing (CAT) has been shown to be a valid and reliable means of assessing patient-reported outcomes. However, normal scores and distributions for a subset of a healthy young athletic population have not been established.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To establish normative PROMIS scores for the domains of Physical Function (PF-CAT), Mobility (M-CAT), Upper Extremity Function (UE-CAT), and Pain Interference (PI-CAT) and determine the frequency of floor and ceiling effects in a population of healthy collegiate athletes.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.
METHODS
METHODS
Healthy collegiate athletes (18-23 years of age) were prospectively enrolled to complete the 4 PROMIS CAT domains. Additionally, the athletes provided information regarding their age, sex, and sport(s). Mean scores (±SD) and identification of ceiling or floor effects were calculated. Ceiling and floor effects were considered significant if >15% of the participants obtained the highest or lowest possible score on a domain.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 194 healthy athletes (mean age, 19.1 years) were included in the study: 118 (60.8%) men and 76 (39.2%) women. Mean scores were 62.9 ± 6.7 for PF-CAT, 58.2 ± 4.1 for M-CAT, 57.4 ± 5.8 for UE-CAT, and 43.2 ± 6.2 for PI-CAT. Distributions of scores for M-CAT and UE-CAT indicated strong ceiling effects by 77.3% and 66.0% of the participants, respectively. In healthy athletes, the PF-CAT differed most from the expected population-based mean score (50), with the mean being >1 SD above (62.9), without a ceiling effect observed. There were no significant sex- or age-based differences on any of the PROMIS domain scores.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Healthy collegiate athletes scored nearly 1 SD from population-based means for all of the domains tested. M-CAT and UE-CAT demonstrated ceiling effects in more than two-thirds of healthy athletes, which may limit their utility in this population. The PF-CAT did not demonstrate floor or ceiling effects and demonstrated differences in a young adult athletic population from the population mean. The mean PF-CAT score of 62.9 can represent a target for return of function in injured athletes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34409111
doi: 10.1177/23259671211017162
pii: 10.1177_23259671211017162
pmc: PMC8366136
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
23259671211017162Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: D.B. has received educational support from Smith & Nephew and Arthrex. R.W.W. is a paid consultant for Responsive Arthroscopy. M.J.M. has received consulting fees from Arthrex and Heron Therapeutics and educational support from Elite Orthopedics. J.J.N. has received consulting fees from Smith & Nephew, Ceterix, and Responsive Arthroscopy and research funding from Smith & Nephew, Stryker, and Zimmer Biomet. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.
Références
J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Feb;61(2):102-9
pubmed: 18177782
Qual Life Res. 1997 Aug;6(6):595-600
pubmed: 9330558
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Jun;27(6S):S17-S23
pubmed: 29776469
J Hand Surg Am. 2019 Oct;44(10):901.e1-901.e7
pubmed: 30733095
Perspect Clin Res. 2011 Oct;2(4):137-44
pubmed: 22145124
COPD. 2005 Mar;2(1):57-62
pubmed: 17136963
Qual Life Res. 2007;16 Suppl 1:133-41
pubmed: 17401637
J Athl Train. 2016 Sep;51(9):727-732
pubmed: 27912040
J Rheumatol. 2011 Aug;38(8):1759-64
pubmed: 21807798
J Hand Ther. 2017 Oct - Dec;30(4):485-490
pubmed: 27919565
Med Care. 2007 May;45(5 Suppl 1):S3-S11
pubmed: 17443116
Am J Sports Med. 2019 Jan;47(1):181-188
pubmed: 30481472
Arthroscopy. 2017 Mar;33(3):608-616
pubmed: 27964968
Orthop J Sports Med. 2018 May 25;6(5):2325967118774509
pubmed: 29854864
Foot Ankle Int. 2018 Oct;39(10):1192-1198
pubmed: 29972033
Health Serv Insights. 2013 Aug 04;6:61-8
pubmed: 25114561
Am J Sports Med. 2017 Feb;45(2):449-453
pubmed: 28146398
Arthroscopy. 2020 Mar;36(3):901-912.e7
pubmed: 31919023
Am J Sports Med. 2019 Mar;47(4):876-884
pubmed: 30753105
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 Jun 7;99(11):954-958
pubmed: 28590381