Relationship Between the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System and Traditional Patient-Reported Outcomes for Osteoarthritis

Padilla, Jorge A.; Rudy, Hayeem L.; Gabor, Jonathan A.; Friedlander, Scott; Iorio, Richard; Karia, Raj; Slover, James

doi:10.1016/j.arth.2018.10.012

Cited by 32 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although this study did separate patients who were treated operatively with total joint replacement versus those who were managed nonoperatively, they did not differentiate PRO scores between preoperative and postoperative time points. Although our study did not produce correlations as strong as the Kollmorgen et al 24 or Padilla et al 34 studies, we believe that our study offers a more valid estimate of agreement between PROMIS and legacy scores, given that we looked distinctly at preoperative and postoperative time points and that surgical and nonoperative patients have very different clinical courses. Fourth, there are inherent limitations in measuring subjective outcomes, particularly when it comes to function.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 61%

“…However, this study did not differentiate between preoperative/ postoperative or surgical/nonsurgical patients; rather we grouped all preoperative, postoperative, and nonsurgical patients together into a single group and measured correlations as if at a single time point. Similarly, another recently published study by Padilla et al 34 also reported moderate to strong correlations between legacy (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score joint replacement and HOOS-joint replacement) and PROMIS scores in patients presenting to an adult reconstructive outpatient clinic with hip or knee complaints. Although this study did separate patients who were treated operatively with total joint replacement versus those who were managed nonoperatively, they did not differentiate PRO scores between preoperative and postoperative time points.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

See 1 more Smart Citation

PROMIS Versus Legacy Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Patients Undergoing Surgical Treatment for Symptomatic Acetabular Dysplasia

Clohisy

Schwabe

et al. 2020

Am J Sports Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: No previous study has investigated how the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) performs compared with legacy patient-reported outcome measures in patients with symptomatic acetabular dysplasia treated with periacetabular osteotomy (PAO). Purpose: To (1) measure the strength of correlation between the PROMIS and legacy outcome measures and (2) assess floor and ceiling effects of the PROMIS and legacy outcome measures in patients treated with PAO for symptomatic acetabular dysplasia. Study Design: Cohort study (Diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: This study included 220 patients who underwent PAO for the treatment of symptomatic acetabular dysplasia. Outcome measures included the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) pain, HOOS activities of daily living (ADL), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), PROMIS pain, and PROMIS physical function subsets, with scores collected preoperatively and/or postoperatively at a minimum 12-month follow-up. The change in mean scores from preoperatively to postoperatively was calculated only in a subgroup of 57 patients with scores at both time points. Distributions of the PROMIS and legacy scores were compared to evaluate floor and ceiling effects, and Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate agreement. Results: The mean age at the time of surgery was 27.7 years, and 83.6% were female. The mean follow-up time was 1.5 years. Preoperatively, neither the PROMIS nor the legacy measures showed significant floor or ceiling effects. Postoperatively, all legacy measures showed significant ceiling effects, with 15% of patients with a maximum HOOS pain score of 100, 29% with a HOOS ADL score of 100, and 21% with an mHHS score of 100. The PROMIS and legacy instruments showed good agreement preoperatively and postoperatively. The PROMIS pain had a moderate to strong negative correlation with the HOOS pain ( r = −0.66; P < .0001) and mHHS ( r = −0.60; P < .0001) preoperatively and the HOOS pain ( r = −0.64; P < .0001) and mHHS ( r = −0.64; P < .0001) postoperatively. The PROMIS physical function had a moderate positive correlation with the HOOS ADL ( r = 0.51; P < .0001) and mHHS ( r = 0.49; P < .0001) preoperatively and a stronger correlation postoperatively with the HOOS ADL ( r = 0.56; P < .0001) and mHHS ( r = 0.56; P < .0001). Conclusion: We found good agreement between PROMIS and legacy scores preoperatively and postoperatively. PROMIS scores were largely normally distributed, demonstrating an expanded ability to capture variability in patients with improved outcomes after treatment.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 61%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

PROMIS Versus Legacy Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Patients Undergoing Surgical Treatment for Symptomatic Acetabular Dysplasia

Clohisy

Schwabe

et al. 2020

Am J Sports Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Preoperatively, high-moderate to high correlation was observed between the PF CAT and HRQoL and dedicated lower extremity physical function instruments, in agreement with extensive evidence from previous studies correlating the PF CAT with legacy instruments in other lower extremity pathology or sports injuries. 12 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 Among legacy instruments, the KOOS sports and recreational activities component has consistently demonstrated remarkable agreement with the PF CAT, and we found it to have the strongest correlation in our group. 31 , 35 , 38 Studies in shoulder instability and meniscal surgery made similar observations.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 60%

Performance of PROMIS Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Depression Computer Adaptive Tests Instruments in Patients Undergoing Meniscal Surgery

Nwachukwu

Patel

et al. 2020

Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To compare the performance of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF), pain interference (PIF), and depression computer adaptive tests (CAT) relative to legacy instruments in patients undergoing meniscal surgery. Methods Patients scheduled to undergo meniscal surgery completed legacy knee function PROMs (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS] subscores), Marx Activity Rating Scale (MARS), Veterans-Rand 12 (VR12), Short Form 12 (SF12), and the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) alongside PROMIS PF, PIF, and Depression preoperatively. Spearman rank correlations were calculated, and score distributions were examined for floor and ceiling effects. Results 152 patients (46.6 ± 14.9 years, 67.1% male) completed PROMs for appropriate inclusion. PROMIS PF yielded high-moderate to high correlations with the IKDC and KOOS subscales ( r = 0.61 to 0.73), demonstrating similar performance to the IKDC. PROMIS PIF demonstrated moderately high-moderate to high correlations with the IKDC, KOOS subscales, VR-12 Physical Component Score (PCS), and SF12 PCS ( r = 0.62 to 0.71), performing comparably to KOOS Pain ( r = 0.55 to 0.92). PROMIS Depression demonstrated moderate to high-moderate correlations with the mental health legacies ( r = 0.46 to 0.66). Significant ceiling effects were observed for MARS (n = 29, 18.8%), and significant floor effects were exhibited by PROMIS Depression (n = 38, 25%) and MARS (n = 27, 17.6%). Conclusion The PROMIS PF, PIF CAT, and Depression instruments exhibit comparable performance profiles relative to legacy knee PROMs. PROMIS PF and PIF demonstrated no floor and ceiling effects, whereas PROMIS Depression exhibited a significant relative floor effect. PROMIS PF and PIF may be appropriately used to establish functional baselines preoperatively. Level of Evidence IV, diagnostic case series.

show abstract

“…PROMIS pain intensity assesses severity of pain experienced by patients. The first two items ask the patient to report pain intensity “in the past 7 days” and the last about “level of pain right now.” PROMIS pain intensity demonstrates good test‐retest reliability and concurrent validity with strong correlations established with valid disease specific measures, such as the Knee and Hip Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score in patients with knee and hip pathologies as well as the Neck Disability Index in patients with neck pain (Bartlett et al, ; Moses et al, ; Padilla et al, ; PROMIS PI scoring manual, ). Bartlett et al () suggests that a mean PROMIS score between 45 and 55 is within normal limits (0.5 SD ) of the general U.S. population.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feasibility and acceptability of telephone‐delivered cognitive‐behavioral‐based physical therapy for patients with traumatic lower extremity injury

Davidson

Coronado

Vanston

et al. 2019

J Appl Biobehavioral Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To determine feasibility and acceptability of a telephone‐based Cognitive‐Behavioral‐Based Physical Therapy program for patients following traumatic lower extremity injury (CBPT‐Trauma). Methods Patients were screened for high psychosocial risk factors and then completed the 6‐week CBPT‐Trauma program. Physical function, pain, and psychosocial outcomes were assessed at baseline and 6‐months follow‐up. Descriptive statistics assessed change in outcomes. Results Recruitment rate was 59%. Twenty‐seven patients (73%) had a high psychosocial risk profile. Twelve patients completed the program and the follow‐up assessment at 6 months and found the program to be very or extremely helpful to their overall recovery. All demonstrated a clinically meaningful increase in physical function. Six patients demonstrated a clinically relevant decrease in pain intensity, pain catastrophizing, and fear of movement. Seven patients reported a clinically meaningful increase in pain self‐efficacy. Discussion Findings suggest that recruitment is feasible for CBPT‐Trauma program. However, engagement in the CBPT‐Trauma study was low. For those that completed the program, patients were satisfied with the CBPT‐Trauma program and experienced meaningful improvement in psychosocial factors and patient‐reported outcomes. This open pilot study highlights the importance of targeted treatment for patients at high‐risk for poor outcomes and the potential for increased access to services through telephone‐delivery.

show abstract

Relationship Between the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System and Traditional Patient-Reported Outcomes for Osteoarthritis

Cited by 32 publications

References 20 publications

PROMIS Versus Legacy Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Patients Undergoing Surgical Treatment for Symptomatic Acetabular Dysplasia

PROMIS Versus Legacy Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Patients Undergoing Surgical Treatment for Symptomatic Acetabular Dysplasia

Performance of PROMIS Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Depression Computer Adaptive Tests Instruments in Patients Undergoing Meniscal Surgery

Feasibility and acceptability of telephone‐delivered cognitive‐behavioral‐based physical therapy for patients with traumatic lower extremity injury

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About