Outcome Metrics in Pediatric Sports Medicine: Do PROMIS Computer-adaptive Testing Metrics Correlate With Pedi-IKDC?

Schafer, Kevin A.; Minaie, Arya; Nepple, Jeffrey J.

doi:10.1097/bpo.0000000000001508

Cited by 3 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 51 studies8–10,17–64 of PROMIS in pediatric orthopaedics were identified in the current review. Study characteristics by year, author, orthopaedic population, topic, and cohort size can be found in Appendix, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/BPO/A524.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the purposes of this review, patients were grouped by body part or subspecialty. Most studies were included within the “Hand and Upper Extremity”10,23–34 (25.5%, n=13) and “Sports”47–58 (23.5%, n=12) categories followed by “Spine”8,41–46 (13.7%, n=7), “Trauma”9,59–64 (13.7%, n=7), “General Pediatric Orthopaedics”17–22 (11.8%, n=6), “Lower Extremity”35–39 (9.8%, n=5), and “Orthopaedic Oncology”40 (2%, n=1).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They found only moderate correlations (r = -0.49, P < 0.01) and concluded that patients who are painful but still highly active will have a low PROMIS Pain Interference score despite a higher pain assessment on Pedi-IKDC. 54 This highlights a limitation of PROMIS compared with legacy metrics. In spine subspecialty, PROMIS pediatric Mobility and Pain Interference domains were shown to be strongly correlated (r = 0.65 and 0.70 respectively, P < 0.001) with the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS-22r) questionnaire.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There were 1961 unique citations included after the removal of 1756 duplicates. After initial screening, 183 studies were screened under full-text review leaving a final number of 51 studies8–10,17–64 included in this scoping review (Fig. 1).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The methodology of the studies included 3 categories: (1) Outcome studies [8][9][10]17,18,[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][34][35][36][37][38][40][41][42]47,48,55,57,[59][60][61][62][63][64] in which baseline PROMIS scores were assessed in a specific disease state or to evaluate the outcome of a surgical procedure or treatment (n = 31, 60.8%), (2) PROM comparison studies 8,[19][20][21][22][23]29,31,33,39,41,[43][44][45][46]49,54,56,58 in which PROMIS was compared with a legacy PROM within a ...…”

Section: Study Designsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

PROMIS Utilization in Pediatric Orthopaedics: A Scoping Review

Eisenberg

Block

Ganapathy

et al. 2022

Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The lack of a common patient-reported outcome metric used among the orthopaedic population is a problem that has been previously identified by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) was developed by the National Institute of Health with the goal of creating a precise and efficient measurement tool for patient-reported symptoms, functioning, and health-related quality of life to be used in clinical research. A study summarizing its use in the pediatric orthopaedic population has not been previously performed. Methods: We performed a literature search of Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 2010 to August 2021. There were 1961 unique citations included after the removal of 1756 duplicates. After initial screening, 183 studies were screened under full-text review leaving a final number of 51 studies included in this scoping review. Results: Pediatric PROMIS studies were grouped by body part or sub-speciality: "Hand and Upper Extremity" (25.5%, n = 13), "Sports" (23.5%, n = 12), "Spine" (13.7%, n = 7), "Trauma" (13.7%, n = 7), "General Pediatric Orthopaedics" (11.8%, n = 6), "Lower Extremity" (9.8%, n = 5), and "Orthopaedic Oncology" (2%, n = 1). An increase in studies utilizing PROMIS was seen throughout the study period with only 3 studies published from 2013 to 2016 to 39 in 2020 and 2021 alone. The 3 most frequently used pediatric PROMIS domains were Pain Interference (76.5%, n = 39/51), Mobility (60.8%, n = 31/51), and Upper Extremity (54.9%, n = 28/51). 64.3% (n = 9/14) of the included studies which reported on the floor effects of Pain Interference exhibited a significant floor effect. In all, 77.8% (n = 7/9) of the included studies which reported on ceiling effects of Upper Extremity exhibited a significant ceiling effect. Conclusion: The use of PROMIS increased significantly since the first publication in 2013 suggesting orthopaedic providers have increasingly utilized PROMIS in their day-to-day practice as an outcome measure. Ceiling and floor effects were prominent in several of the included domains (Pain Interference and Upper Extremity). Overall, PROMIS measures are efficient, reliable, and effective to use. Level of Evidence: IV.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Designsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

PROMIS Utilization in Pediatric Orthopaedics: A Scoping Review

Eisenberg

Block

Ganapathy

et al. 2022

Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Quality of patient- and proxy-reported outcomes for children with impairment of the lower extremity: A systematic review using the COnsensus-based Standards for selection of health Measurement INstruments methodology

Saris,

Kalle,

Sierevelt

et al. 2023

Journal of Children's Orthopaedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures have become crucial in the clinical evaluation of patients. Appropriate selection, in a young population, of the instrument is vital to providing evidence-based patient-centered healthcare. This systematic review applies the COnsensus-based Standards for selection of health Measurement INstruments methodology to provide a critically appraised overview of patient-reported outcome measures targeted at pediatric orthopedic patients with lower limb impairment. Method: A systematic search of electronic databases was performed to identify original studies reporting the development and/or validation of patient-reported outcome measures evaluating children with impairment of the lower extremity. Data extraction, quality assessment, and risk of bias evaluation were performed following the COnsensus-based Standards for selection of health Measurement INstruments guidelines and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Results: A total of 6919 articles were screened. Thirty-three studies were included, reporting evidence on the measurement properties of 13 different patient-reported outcome measures and 20 translations. Four studies reported on content validity and patient-reported outcome measure development. The methodological quality of studies on structural validity, content validity, or patient-reported outcome measure development was mostly rated as “doubtful” or “very good.” The quality of evidence on measurement properties varied noticeably, with most studies needing to perform improve their methodological quality to justify their results. Conclusion: This review provides an extensive overview of all available patient-reported outcome measures for patients with lower extremity impairment within pediatric orthopedics. We cautiously advise the use of four patient-reported outcome measures. However, the scarce availability of research on content validity and patient-reported outcome measure development highlights an area for future research endeavors to improve our knowledge on the currently available patient-reported outcome measures. Level of evidence: Diagnostic level 1

show abstract

Validation and cultural adaptation of the Russian version of the Pedi-IKDC questionnaire

Ivanov

El'tsin

Mininkov

2021

Pediatr Traum Orthop Reconstr Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Questionnaires are standard tools used for examination of patients. Obtained data provide information about knee function disturbance and level of the quality of life. Young patients with various knee injuries also needed examination questionnaires. In worldwide practice, the Pediatric International Knee Documentation Committee (Pedi-IKDC) is more often used by doctors. However, if the doctor wants to use foreign questionnaire in his/her practice, the questionnaire should be validated and culturally adaptable. AIM: This study aimed to enable the validation and cultural adaptation of the Russian version of the Pedi-IKDC questionnaire based on the English version for children and adolescent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This questionnaire was translated from English by professional medical translator and by orthopedic surgeon. The Lysholm questionnaire was also used to control the adequacy of Pedi-IKDC results. Statistical analysis was performed to process data. RESULTS: Cronbachs alpha was 0.902, which means that questions have high level of consistency. The high correlation of results between the Lysholm and Pedi-IKDC questionnaire also proves the adequateness and objectiveness of the results. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed Russian version of the Pedi-IKDС questionnaire gives effective, objective, and adequate results. It is a good tool for knee assessment in children.

show abstract

Outcome Metrics in Pediatric Sports Medicine: Do PROMIS Computer-adaptive Testing Metrics Correlate With Pedi-IKDC?

Cited by 3 publications

References 17 publications

PROMIS Utilization in Pediatric Orthopaedics: A Scoping Review

PROMIS Utilization in Pediatric Orthopaedics: A Scoping Review

Quality of patient- and proxy-reported outcomes for children with impairment of the lower extremity: A systematic review using the COnsensus-based Standards for selection of health Measurement INstruments methodology

Validation and cultural adaptation of the Russian version of the Pedi-IKDC questionnaire

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About