Background: This study investigates the psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome instruments for assessing outcomes in postsurgical traumatic digit amputation patients. The authors hypothesize that the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire are the most valid and reliable instruments. Methods: The authors studied traumatic digit amputation patients as part of the Finger Replantation and Amputation Challenges in Assessing Impairment, Satisfaction, and Effectiveness (FRANCHISE) study initiated by The Plastic Surgery Foundation. The MHQ, DASH questionnaire, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey were used to assess patients at least 1 year postoperatively. Internal consistency was measured by Cronbach’s alpha and criterion validity with Pearson correlation coefficient (r). Construct validity was tested with four predefined hypotheses. Discriminant validity was analyzed by receiver operating characteristic curves. Results: One hundred sixty-eight replantation and 74 revision amputation patients met the inclusion criteria. All instruments demonstrated fair to good internal consistency in both cohorts (0.7 < α < 0.9). The MHQ and DASH questionnaire scores correlated strongly (r > 0.60) in both cohorts. The 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey had moderate to weak correlation with the remaining instruments, and its mental component had poor discriminant validity (area under the curve, 0.64 to 0.67). The MHQ, DASH questionnaire, and PROMIS demonstrated good construct validity confirming 75 to 100 percent of predefined hypotheses, whereas the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey confirmed only 25 percent. Conclusions: The authors recommend using the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire or the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire when assessing patient-reported outcomes in digit amputation patients based on good internal consistency and validity. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System has fair validity and reliability but should be an adjunct instrument. The 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey should not be used as a primary assessment tool, but as an adjunct to assess overall quality of life.
BackgroundThe National Institute of Health's Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) uses computerised-adaptive testing to reduce survey burden and improve sensitivity. PROMIS is being used across medical and surgical disciplines but has not been studied in orthopaedic oncology.Questions/purposesThe aim of the study was to compare PROMIS measures with upper extremity (UE) and lower extremity (LE) Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) by assessing the following: (1) responder burden, (2) correlation between scores and (3) floor/ceiling effects.Patients and methodsThis cross-sectional trial analysed all 97 adult patients treated surgically for a bone or soft tissue tumour at a tertiary institution between November 2015 and March 2016. TESS (UE or LE) and PROMIS (Physical Function, Pain Interference and Depression) surveys were administered preoperatively. Pearson correlations between each PROMIS domain and TESS were calculated, as were floor/ceiling effects of each outcome measure.Results(1) Completion of three PROMIS questionnaires required a mean total of 16.8 (+/− 5.8 standard deviation) questions, compared with 31 and 32 questions for the LE and UE TESS questionnaires, respectively. (2) The PROMIS Physical Function scores demonstrated a strong positive correlation with the LE TESS (r = 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72–0.91; p < 0.001) and moderate positive correlation with the UE TESS (r = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.34–0.83; p = 0.055). The PROMIS Depression scores demonstrated a weak negative correlation with both the LE TESS (r = −0.38; 95% CI, –0.61 to −0.10; p = 0.010) and with UE TESS (r = −0.38; 95% CI, –0.67 to −0.01; p = 0.055). The PROMIS Pain Interference scores demonstrated a strong negative correlation with the LE TESS (r = −0.71; 95% CI, –0.83 to −0.52; p < 0.001) and a moderate negative correlation with the UE TESS (r = −0.62; 95% CI, –0.81 to −0.30; p = 0.001). (3) The UE TESS had a range of scores from 16 to 100 with a 27% ceiling effect and no floor effect, and the LE TESS had a range from 10 to 98 with no floor or ceiling effect. There was no floor or ceiling effect for any PROMIS measures.ConclusionsIn an orthopaedic oncology population, the PROMIS Physical Function and Pain Interference scores correlate with the TESS and have the benefit of reduced survey burden and ceiling effect. The PROMIS Depression scores may provide additional information regarding patient outcomes not captured by the TESS.Level of EvidenceLevel III.The translational potential of this articlePatient reported outcome measures asses patients' symptoms, function and health-related quality of life and are designed to capture more clinical information than can be gathered by objective medial testing alone. As reimbursements and the understanding of patient outcomes are becoming tied to performance on PROMIS measures, it is an important step to establish how PROMIS measures correlate and compare to traditional legacy measures.
No abstract
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.