Evaluation of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test

Does Wound VAC Temporization Offer Patient-Reported Outcomes Similar to Single-Stage Excision Reconstruction After Myxofibrosarcoma Resection?

BACKGROUND

Vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) temporization is a promising technique to achieve local control in aggressive soft tissue sarcomas. Despite its previously reported efficacy, adoption of VAC temporization remains limited, primarily due to the scarce literature on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) supporting its efficacy. This study compared the postoperative PROs after VAC temporization or single-stage (SS) excision and reconstruction for patients undergoing surgical resection for myxofibrosarcoma management.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of myxofibrosarcoma patients who underwent surgical resections at our institution from 2016 to 2022 was performed. Postoperative PROs collected prospectively for those treated with VAC temporization or SS excision/reconstruction were compared using a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and three Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) questionnaires: Global Health Short-Form Mental (SF Mental), Global Health Short-Form Physical (SF Physical), and Physical Function Short-Form 10a (SF 10a). Absolute and differential (postoperative minus preoperative) scores at the 1-month, 3-month, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year time points were compared.

RESULTS

The analysis included 79 patients (47 treated with VAC temporization and 32 treated with SS excision/reconstruction). All outcomes were similar between the groups except for physical function 1 year after surgery, in which the differential PROMIS SF 10a scores were higher in the SS group (p = 0.001). All the remaining absolute and differential PROMIS and VAS pain scores were similar between the groups at all time points. Postoperative complications did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSION

The PROs for physical and mental health, physical function, and pain were similar between the myxofibrosarcoma patients who had VAC temporization and those who had SS excision/reconstruction after surgical resection.

Establishing the Patient Acceptable Symptom State in a Nonshoulder Hand and Upper Extremity Population for the QuickDASH and PROMIS UE Computer Adaptive Tests

PURPOSE

It is unclear what score thresholds on patient-reported outcomes instruments reflect an acceptable level of upper extremity (UE) function from the perspective of patients undergoing hand surgery. The purpose of this study was to calculate the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) UE Computer Adaptive Test (CAT), version 2.0, in a population who underwent hand surgery.

METHODS

Adult patients who underwent hand surgery between February 2019 and December 2019 at a single academic tertiary institution were identified. QuickDASH and PROMIS UE CAT version 2.0 scores were collected 1 year after surgery, as were separate symptom- and function-specific anchor questions that queried the acceptability of patients' current state. Threshold values predictive of a patient reporting an acceptable symptom state (PASS[+]) were calculated for both instruments using the 75th percentile score for patients in the PASS(+) group and the Youden Index as determined by receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 222 patients were included. QuickDASH and PROMIS UE CAT scores differed significantly between the PASS(+) and PASS(-) groups. The 75th percentile method yielded PASS values of <16 for the QuickDASH and >43 for the PROMIS UE CAT for both anchor questions. The ROC analysis yielded PASS estimates of <15.9 to <20.5 for the QuickDASH and >38.1 to >46.2 for the PROMIS UE CAT, with ranges calculated from differing threshold values for each of the 2 anchor questions. The ROC-based estimates demonstrated high levels of model discrimination (area under the curve ≥ 0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

We propose PASS estimates obtained using the 75th percentile and ROC methods.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Specifically, PASS values in the range of 15.9-20.5 for the QuickDASH and 38.1-46.2 for the PROMIS UE CAT version 2.0 should be used when interpreting outcomes at a population level.

Responsiveness of the Brief Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Interference in the Context of Patient Mental Health

PURPOSE

A patient-reported outcomes measure (PROM) is responsive if it is sensitive to clinical status changes. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is used to indicate meaningful change, helpful in designing studies and adding context to some study results, and is related to instrument responsiveness. Our purpose was to provide MCID estimates for the brief Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (bMHQ) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) in a hand and upper extremity surgery cohort within the context of varying patient-reported mental health.

METHODS

Data were analyzed from 1,262 adult patients who received surgical care at a single center between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019. Patients completed PROMIS PI, PROMIS Global Health (including global mental health [GMH] component), bMHQ, and a pain-focused anchor question before each clinic visit. Data were collected 8 ± 2 weeks before and after surgery. A distribution-based MCID then was calculated for the general patient population, lowest 10th percentile of GMH scores, and top 10th percentile of GMH scores.

RESULTS

Minimal clinically important difference estimates were 10.4 for the bMHQ and 4.3 for PROMIS PI. Analysis of MCID across different GMH score groups showed a mean score of 11.5 for bMHQ for the lowest 10th percentile of GMH, 9.6 for bMHQ for the top 10th percentile, 4.5 for PI for the lowest 10th percentile, and 4.9 for PI for the top 10th percentile.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of subgroups stratified by preoperative patient-reported mental health condition found that preoperative mental health status, as indicated by GMH score, does not have a meaningful impact on responsiveness of bMHQ or PROMIS PI.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

A patient's reported mental health condition does not meaningfully change how these common PRO instruments reflect the patient condition after hand and upper extremity surgery.

Surgical healing beyond the scalpel: exploring the impact of depressive symptoms on functional recovery in total knee arthroplasty patients

BACKGROUND

Numerous recent studies have explored the association between the mental health condition of patients before surgery and the outcomes of total knee arthroplasty. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of depressive symptoms among individuals undergoing total knee arthroplasty and to investigate the impact of pre-operative depressive symptoms as a significant and independent predictor on various health-related quality of life measures for patients undergoing knee surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

During the period spanning from August 2019 to May 2020, an orthopedic database was established for the purpose of assessing patients' conditions before their surgeries. The data collection process occurred at three distinct intervals: prior to the surgery, as well as at the third and sixth months following the surgical procedure. In this study, we undertook an evaluation of both pre-operative and postoperative depressive symptoms, as well as functional status, utilizing various self-report measures. These measures included the Becks Depression Scale, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and the Knee Society Clinical Rating System.

RESULTS

A total of 150 patients were included in the study. The proportion of patients who were severely distressed decreased from 99% (149) at the baseline assessment to 76% (114) who had mild depression and 24% (36) at borderline at 3-months of follow-up. At 6-month follow-up period, 85% (128) patients were classified as normal, with 15% (22) displaying mild distress levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients experiencing depression exhibited notable enhancements in various outcome measures. The findings from this study underscore a two-way relationship between mental health and surgical outcomes. Specifically, the surgical intervention yielded significant improvements in mental health status. Conversely, poorer pre-operative mental health status emerged as a predictive factor for comparatively less favorable outcomes stemming from the surgery.

Responsiveness of PROMIS Instruments for Trigger Digit After Corticosteroid Injection or A1 Pulley Release

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to determine if the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) is sufficiently sensitive to detect improvement after 2 common treatments of trigger finger: corticosteroid injection or A1 pulley release.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 72 patients in the injection group and 51 in the A1 pulley release group. PROMIS physical function (PF), pain interference (PI), and upper extremity (UE) scores were collected at baseline and 6 weeks after injection for the injection group and at baseline, and 1 week, 6 weeks, and 3 months after surgery for A1 pulley release patients. Descriptive statistics and paired t tests were used to compare PROMIS scores within each cohort. Standardized response means (SRMs) were calculated for each PROMIS domain to gauge instrument responsiveness.

RESULTS

Average age was 62 years, 65% were female patients, and 86% were White for the steroid injection cohort, compared to 60 years, 71%, and 88%, respectively, for the A1 pulley release cohort. For the steroid injection group, mean PROMIS PI scores (-4.0 points; SRM = -0.6) and PROMIS UE scores (+3.3 points; SRM = 0.5) improved significantly at 6 weeks after injection compared to baseline. Meanwhile, A1 pulley release patients improved significantly in mean PI scores (-3.7 points; SRM = -0.5) and in UE scores (+4.9 points; SRM = 0.7) at 3 months after surgery compared to baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical improvements after trigger digit treatments are reflected in improved PROMIS PI and UE scores that reach previously accepted minimum clinically important difference values for hand patients. PROMIS PI and UE also are more responsive than PROMIS PF in capturing improvement for trigger digit treatments.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

As health care payers continue to emphasize patient-reported outcomes to determine treatment value and set reimbursement rates, this study helps establish that clinical improvement after trigger digit treatments are reflected in PROMIS PI and UE domains by reaching previously established minimum clinically important difference values for hand patients.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement and Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Hand Surgeons

Patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) tools are used to evaluate health status and response to treatment and have been integral in the effort to improve the quality of care provided. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) have garnered additional attention since becoming a priority of the National Institutes of Health in the early part of this century, and their use in both clinical practice and research has subsequently increased. In the upper extremity, a variety of PRO instruments exist that can assist physicians in their ability to track and/or prognosticate outcomes, make comparisons between treatments as well as strengthen research methodologies, and help determine the value of care. A more complete interpretation of the clinical significance of patient-reported outcome measurements is informed by parameters such as minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit and patient acceptable symptom state.

What are the Minimum Clinically Important Difference Values for the PROMIS and QuickDASH After Carpal Tunnel Release? A Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

To better define the clinical significance of patient-reported outcomes, the concept of a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) exists. The MCID is the minimum change that a patient will perceive as meaningful. Prior attempts to determine the MCID after carpal tunnel release are limited by methodologic concerns, including the lack of a true anchor-based MCID calculation.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

To address previous methodologic concerns in existing studies, as well as establish a clinically useful value for clinicians, we asked: What are the MCID values for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity (UE), PROMIS Pain Interference (PI), and the QuickDASH after carpal tunnel release?

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study at an urban, Midwest, multihospital, academic health system. One hundred forty-seven adult patients undergoing unilateral carpal tunnel release between September 2020 and February 2022 were identified. PROMIS UE, PI, and QuickDASH scores were collected preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively. We also collected responses to an anchor-based question: "Since your treatment, how would you rate your overall function?" (much worse, worse, slightly worse, no change, slightly improved, improved, or much improved). Patients who did not respond to the 3-month postoperative surveys were excluded. A total of 122 patients were included in the final analysis (83% response proportion [122 of 147]). The mean age was 57 years (range 23 to 87 years), and 68% were women. The MCID was calculated using both anchor-based and distribution-based methods. Although anchor-based calculations are generally considered more clinically relevant because they consider patients' perceptions of improvement, an estimation of the minimum detectable change (which represents measurement error) relies on a distribution-based calculation. We determined a range of MCID values to propose a final MCID value for all three instruments. A negative MCID value for the PROMIS PI instrument represents a decrease in pain, whereas a positive value for the PROMIS UE instrument represents an improvement in function. A negative value for the QuickDASH instrument represents an increase in function.

RESULTS

The final proposed MCID values were 6.2 (interquartile range [IQR] 5.4 to 9.0) for the PROMIS UE, -7.8 (IQR -6.1 to -8.5) for the PROMIS PI, and -18.2 (IQR -13.3 to -34.1) for the QuickDASH.

CONCLUSION

We recommend that clinicians use the following values as the MCID after carpal tunnel release: 6 for the UE, -8 for the PI, and -18 for the QuickDASH. Surgeons may find these values useful when counseling patients postoperatively regarding improvement. Future studies could examine whether a single MCID (or small range) for PROMIS instruments is applicable to a variety of conditions and interventions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, therapeutic study.

Comparing Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Computer Adaptive Testing With Existing Measures After Operative Interventions for Extremity Fractures

INTRODUCTION

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) enables the use of computer adaptive testing (CAT). The aim of this prospective cohort study was to compare the most commonly used disease-specific instruments with PROMIS CAT questionnaires in patients with trauma.

METHODS

All patients with trauma (ages 18-75) who underwent an operative intervention for an extremity fracture between June 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019, were included. The disease-specific instruments were the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand for upper extremity fractures and the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) for lower extremity fractures. Pearson's correlation (r) between the disease-specific instruments and the PROMIS CAT questionnaires (PROMIS Physical Function, PROMIS Pain Interference, and PROMIS Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities) was calculated at week 2, week 6, month 3, and month 6. Construct validity and responsiveness were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 151 patients with an upper extremity fracture and 109 patients with a lower extremity fracture were included. At month 3 and month 6, the correlation was strong between the LEFS and PROMIS Physical Function (r = 0.88 and r = 0.90, respectively), and at month 3, the correlation was strong between the LEFS and PROMIS Social Roles and Activities (r = 0.72). At week 6, month 3, and month 6, there was a strong correlation between the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand and PROMIS Physical Function (r = 0.74, r = 0.70, and r = 0.76, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The PROMIS CAT measures are acceptably related to existing non-CAT instruments and may be a useful tool during follow-up after operative interventions for extremity fractures.

Excellent Correlation of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity Score With Legacy Outcome Scores Preoperatively and at 1 Year After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair

Purpose

To assess the preoperative and postoperative performance of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity (PROMIS-UE, version 2.0) outcome score in comparison to the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) instruments in patients undergoing rotator cuff repair.

Methods

This prospective longitudinal study included 91 patients undergoing rotator cuff repair. Patients completed the PROMIS-UE, ASES, and WORC instruments preoperatively and postoperatively at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 12 months. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) between these tools was calculated at each time point. Correlations were graded as excellent (>0.7), excellent-good (0.61-0.7), good (0.4-0.6), or poor (<0.4). Responsiveness to change was assessed using the effect size and the standardized response mean. Floor and ceiling effects for each instrument were also assessed.

Results

The PROMIS-UE instrument showed good to excellent correlation with the legacy instruments at all time points. There were variations in the measured effect sizes of the various instruments, with the PROMIS-UE instrument showing responsiveness to change at 3 and 12 months but the ASES and WORC instruments showing responsiveness at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 12 months. Both PROMIS-UE and ASES scores displayed ceiling effects at 12 months.

Conclusions

The PROMIS-UE instrument shows excellent correlation with the ASES instrument and a rotator cuff-specific outcome instrument-the WORC instrument-preoperatively and at 1 year after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Variations in the measured effect sizes at different postoperative time points and high ceiling effects of the PROMIS-UE instrument at the 1-year time point may limit its utility in the early postoperative phase and at long-term follow-up after rotator cuff repair.

Clinical Relevance

The performance of the PROMIS-UE outcome measure after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair was investigated.

Patients With Metastatic Disease Are at Highest Risk for Anxiety and Depression in an Orthopedic Oncology Patient Population

PURPOSE

Patients with cancer are at risk for anxiety and depression; however, the patterns and predictors of symptoms in an orthopedic oncology population have not been studied.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scores of all adult patients who underwent palliative surgery for metastatic cancer, resection of a sarcoma, or nononcologic total joint arthroplasty at a single institution from 2015 to 2020. Backward stepwise linear regression was used to determine risk factors for perioperative anxiety and depression.

RESULTS

Postoperative anxiety and depression were more prevalent in patients with metastatic disease than localized cancer or nononcologic conditions (P < .001 and P < .001, respectively). Worse preoperative pain and function were associated with higher preoperative anxiety (β = .321, P = .001; β = -.236, P = .012, respectively) and depression (β = .245, P = .009; β = -.279, P = .003, respectively). Worse preoperative anxiety, preoperative depression, and postoperative pain were associated with higher postoperative anxiety (β = .204, P = .012; β = .260, P = .001; β = .447, P < .001, respectively). Worse preoperative depression and postoperative pain also predicted higher postoperative depression (β = .542, P < .001; β = .325, P < .001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Anxiety and depression were most prevalent in patients with metastatic disease. Compared with total joint arthroplasty patients, patients with cancer less frequently experienced postoperative improvements in anxiety and depression. Worse preoperative pain and function were independently associated with greater preoperative anxiety and depression. Providers should maintain awareness of the relationship between mental and physical health to optimize outcomes.

A 15-Year Review of Clinical Practice Patterns in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Based on Continuous Certification by the American Board of Plastic Surgery

BACKGROUND

The American Board of Plastic Surgery has been collecting practice data on carpal tunnel syndrome treatment since 2004 as part of its Continuous Certification Program. These data allow plastic surgeons to compare their surgical experience to national trends and analyze those trends in relation to current evidence-based medicine.

METHODS

Data on carpal tunnel syndrome treatment from 2004 to 2014 were compared to those from 2015 to 2020. National practice trends observed in these data were evaluated relative to current literature regarding evidence-based practices.

RESULTS

A total of 11,090 carpal tunnel syndrome cases were included from 2004 to 2020. Electrodiagnostic and imaging studies were performed on most patients despite adding little sensitivity and specificity when physical examination tests are performed and not being considered cost-effective. An open "mini" approach has remained the most common surgical technique in carpal tunnel release for the last 15 years, with growing usage (53 percent versus 59 percent, p < 0.001). Splinting has decreased significantly over the last 15 years, from usage in 39 percent of patients to 28 percent (p < 0.001). Formal postoperative hand therapy has declined from 27 percent of patients to 22 percent (p < 0.001). Despite their low efficacy, 63 percent of patients received one or more perioperative doses of antibiotics.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of the Continuous Certification Program tracer data from the American Board of Plastic Surgery provides an excellent overview of current practice and its development over the 15 years since its inception. This analysis provides insight into how effectively plastic surgeons have remained aligned with developments in best practices in treating carpal tunnel syndrome.

Comparison of 2 Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Brachial Plexus Birth Injury: A Systematic Validation Study

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are integral to clinical practice. While new instruments bring updated methodology and delivery methods, they must be compared with existing measures to ensure that they are comparable with currently used instruments and allow ongoing comparison. In this study, we evaluated 2 PRO measures for patients with brachial plexus birth injury (BPBI): the legacy Pediatric Outcomes Data Collection Instrument (PODCI) and the newer Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). We hypothesized that the PROMIS and PODCI would be correlated, with high convergent validity, and that PROMIS assessment would have higher discriminant validity and take less time to complete than the PODCI.

METHODS

A cross-sectional prospective study was undertaken at a tertiary referral center. Subjects (n = 50) completed the PODCI and PROMIS, both as short form (SF) and computer-adaptive testing (CAT) measures, in randomized order. Patient and parent questionnaires were completed according to subject age. Physicians completed upper-extremity (UE) physical function tests. Correlations between PODCI and PROMIS scores were analyzed to determine convergent validity, UE subscores were analyzed relative to physical function scores to assess discriminant validity, and completion times were calculated to determine survey time to completion.

RESULTS

High convergent validity was found between the parent-reported PODCI, PROMIS SF, and PROMIS CAT measures. A ceiling effect was found for the PODCI but not for the PROMIS. The PROMIS CAT had better discriminant validity than either the PROMIS SF or PODCI. Patient and parent outcome scores did not highly correlate. Survey time to completion varied by PRO measure and method of delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

There was high convergent validity between the UE domains of the PROMIS and PODCI, with a lower time to completion for the PROMIS SF. Although results show that the PROMIS CAT may take longer to complete, there are notable benefits to its adoption, including high convergent validity with the PODCI and better discriminant validity than the PODCI and PROMIS SF measures.

Establishing the Substantial Clinical Benefit in a Non-Shoulder Hand and Upper Extremity Population for the QuickDASH and PROMIS Upper Extremity and Physical Function Computer Adaptive Tests

PURPOSE

It is unclear what score changes on the abbreviated Disabilities of the Arm, Hand, and Shoulder (QuickDASH), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) upper extremity (UE) computer adaptive test (CAT), and PROMIS physical function (PF) CAT represent a substantial improvement. We calculated the substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for these 3 instruments in a non-shoulder hand and upper extremity population.

METHODS

Adult patients treated between March 2015 and September 2019 at a single academic tertiary institution were identified. The QuickDASH, PROMIS UE CAT v2.0, and PROMIS PF CAT v2.0 scores were collected using a tablet computer. Responses to the QuickDASH both at baseline and follow-up 6 ± 4 weeks later, and a response to the anchor question "Compared to your first evaluation at the University Orthopaedic Center, how would you describe your physical function level now?" were required for inclusion. A second anchor question querying treatment-related improvement was also used. The SCB was calculated using an anchor-based approach comparing the mean change difference between groups reporting no change and a maximal change for both anchor questions.

RESULTS

Of 1,119 included participants, the mean age was 48 ± 17 years, 53% were women, and half were recovering from surgery. Score changes between baseline and follow-up were significantly different between groups reporting no improvement and maximal improvement on both anchor questions. The SCB values ranged between 16.9 and 22.8 on the QuickDASH, 5.9 and 7.1 on the UE CAT, and 3.5 and 6.7 on the PF CAT.

CONCLUSIONS

These score improvements for the QuickDASH, UE CAT, and PF CAT represent a substantial clinical improvement in a non-shoulder hand and upper extremity population.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

These SCB estimates may assist with the interpretation of outcome scores at a population level.

PROMIS Upper Extremity underperforms psychometrically relative to American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score in patients undergoing primary rotator cuff repair

BACKGROUND

A number of patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) instruments are used to assess shoulder pain, function, and postoperative satisfaction. Computer adaptive tests (CATs) have been developed in an effort to tailor question delivery, decrease time to completion and floor/ceiling effects, and increase compliance. Previous investigations have demonstrated excellent correlation between Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity CAT (UE-CAT) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) instruments, indicating that the PROMIS UE-CAT may be an acceptable alternative to the ASES. Prior to widespread adoption, however, rigorous psychometric validation must be performed. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of PROMIS UE-CAT relative to the ASES score in patients undergoing primary rotator cuff repair (RCR).

METHODS

A retrospective study of an institutional RCR registry was performed from July 2018 through March 2019. Preoperative PROMIS UE-CAT and ASES scores were collected. Floor and ceiling effects were determined, and convergent validity was established through Pearson correlations. Rasch partial credit modeling was used for psychometric analysis of the validity of PROMIS UE-CAT and ASES question items, a previously established methodology for assessing shoulder PROMs. Person-item maps were generated to characterize the distribution of question responses along the latent dimension of shoulder disability.

RESULTS

Responses from 107 patients (107 shoulders) were included. PROMIS UE-CAT had a strong correlation to ASES (r = 0.684; P < .001), with a 3.7% floor effect and no ceiling effect; ASES had no floor or ceiling effects. PROMIS UE-CAT person-item maps revealed excellent test item coverage between floor and ceiling effects; however, all PROMIS UE-CAT items except "Difficulty putting on a jacket" demonstrated nonsequentially ordered responses, indicating poor reliability of item responses corresponding to shoulder function. Although PROMIS UE-CAT initially demonstrated superior instrument efficiency with fewer test items for overall equivalent coverage of shoulder function assessment, final models after recursive item elimination revealed the ASES instrument to have more well-fitting items over a broader range of shoulder function.

CONCLUSION

Despite its overall strong correlation with ASES and equivalent coverage between floor and ceiling effects, the psychometric properties of PROMIS UE-CAT indicate a need for optimization of individual test items to correspond to shoulder function. Until further refinements in the PROMIS UE-CAT instrument are made, it should not replace the ASES instrument in patients undergoing primary RCR.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function Instruments Compare Favorably With Legacy Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Upper- and Lower-Extremity Orthopaedic Patients: A Systematic Review of the Literature

PURPOSE

To compare Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) with traditional ("legacy") patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in regard to correlations, ease of use, and quality criteria for upper (UE) and lower extremity (LE) orthopaedic conditions.

METHODS

A systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE database was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify published articles that referenced the various PROMIS PF measures. Two authors independently reviewed selected studies. The search returned 857 studies, 85 of which were selected for independent review by 2 authors. Of these, 54 were selected for inclusion. Mixed linear models were performed to assess for differences between legacy PROMs and PROMIS measures.

RESULTS

The combined sample size of all included studies yielded 6,074 UE and 9,366 LE patients. Overall, PROMIS PF measures demonstrated strong correlations with legacy PROMs among UE (weighted Pearson correlation, 0.624, standard error [SE] = 0.042; weighted Spearman correlation, 0.566, SE = 0.042) and LE patients (weighted Pearson correlation, 0.645, SE = 0.062; weighted Spearman correlation, 0.631, SE = 0.041). PROMIS PF questionnaires completed by UE patients had fewer questions than legacy PROMs (5.9 vs 17.7, P = .0093) and were completed in less time (90.5 vs 223.8 seconds, P = .084). PROMIS PF questionnaires completed by LE patients had fewer questions than legacy PROMs (4.81 vs 15.33, P < .001) and were completed in less time (63.6 vs 203.2 seconds, P = .0063). The differences for the reliability measures were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

PROMIS PF scores correlate strongly with commonly used legacy PROMs in orthopaedics, particularly in UE and LE patients. PROMIS PF forms can be administered efficiently and to a broad patient population while remaining highly reliable. Therefore, they can be justified for standardized use among orthopaedic patients with UE and LE conditions, improving the ability to aggregate and compare outcomes in orthopaedic research.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level I-IV evidence.

Concurrent Validity of PROMIS With DASH and DVPRS in Transhumeral Amputees

BACKGROUND

We sought to assess whether select domains of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) significantly correlate with the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score and the Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale (DVPRS) among transhumeral amputees.

METHODS

We prospectively administered DASH, DVPRS, and PROMIS (including Upper Extremity, Pain Interference, and Pain Behavior domains) testing to patients presenting for consideration of osseointegration after transhumeral amputation. Concurrent validity was assessed via Pearson correlation testing.

RESULTS

The mean DASH score of the cohort was 32.8. The mean DVPRS score was 1.8. The mean PROMIS scores were 33.8, 50.5, and 50.6 for Upper Extremity, Pain Interference, and Pain Behavior domains, respectively. Pearson testing demonstrated a significant, inverse correlation between DASH and PROMIS Upper Extremity scores (r = -0.85, P = .002). There was also significant correlation between DVPRS and PROMIS Pain Interference scores (r = 0.69, P = .03). The PROMIS Pain Behavior domain did not significantly correlate with either DASH or DVPRS.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity and Pain Interference scores demonstrated significant concurrent validity with traditional measures (DASH and DVPRS) of patient-reported outcome in our population of transhumeral amputees.

Trends in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Scores Exist Between Day of Surgical Scheduling and Day of Surgery

PURPOSE

To examine trends in Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores among orthopedic sports medicine patients undergoing surgery who completed PROMIS forms both in the ambulatory (preoperative) setting at the time of surgical scheduling, as well as on the day of surgery (perioperative) prior to their procedure.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing various sports medicine-related surgeries were recruited. Patients were included if they were scheduled for surgery and completed preoperative PROMIS on the day of surgical scheduling and on the day of surgery. Patients were excluded if they refused the questionnaire or had been administered perioperative anesthesia, which would interfere with questionnaire completion. Paired samples t-tests were run between preoperative and perioperative PROMIS scores to determine statistical significance.

RESULTS

153 patients were included with an average age of 46.5 years. The average (SD) time between completion of PROMIS questionnaires was 46.5 (44.4) days. The absolute value change in scores between preoperative and perioperative visits was 4.09 for PROMIS UE, 3.59 for PROMIS PF, 3.67 for PROMIS PI, and 4.13 for PROMIS D. The overall net change of scores between preoperative and perioperative visits were -.57 for PROMIS UE CAT, .16 points for PROMIS PF CAT, -.85 points for PROMIS PI CAT, and -2.14 points for PROMIS D CAT. Statistically significant differences in preoperative and perioperative PROMIS PI (P =.042) and PROMIS D (P =.004) scores were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Health states-as measured by PROMIS CAT forms completed among patients undergoing orthopedic surgery-can either improve or worsen preoperatively between the time of administration in both the ambulatory and perioperative setting. Despite the existence of these preoperative trends, it is important to consider patient and surgery-specific causes, such as the anatomic region, type of surgical intervention, and timing of preoperative PROMIS administration.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, prognostic.

The relationship between depression, anxiety, and pain interference with therapy referral and utilization among patients with hand conditions

INTRODUCTION

Patients with upper extremity conditions may also experience symptoms of depression, anxiety, and pain that limit functional recovery.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

This study examined the impact of mental health and pain symptoms on referral rates to therapy and utilization of therapy services to achieve functional recovery among patients with common hand conditions.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study of patients from one orthopedic center.

METHODS

Data extraction provided demographics, the International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision diagnoses, therapy referral, therapy visit counts, treatment goal attainment, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Depression, Anxiety, and Pain Interference scores. The chi-square test, t-test, and logistic regression analyses assessed associations between baseline PROMIS depression, anxiety, and pain interference to therapy referral, the number of therapy visits, and goal attainment.

RESULTS

Forty-nine percent (172/351) of patients were referred to hand therapy. There was no relationship between three baseline PROMIS scores based on physician referral (t-test P values .32-.67) and no association between PROMIS scores and therapy utilization or goal attainment (Pearson correlation (r): 0.002 to 0.020, P > .05). Referral to therapy was most strongly associated with having a traumatic condition (P < .01). Patients with high depression, anxiety, and pain interference scores on average required one more therapy visit to achieve treatment goals (average visits: 3.7 vs 3.1; 4.1 vs 2.7; 3.4 vs 2.3, respectively). Fewer patients with high depression scores (50%) achieved their long-term goals than patients with low depression scores (69%, P = .20).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' baseline level of depressive symptoms and anxiety do not predict referrals to hand therapy by orthopedic hand surgeons. There is some indication that patients with increased depressive symptoms, anxiety, and pain interference require more therapy with fewer achieving all goals, suggesting that mental health status may affect response to therapy. Therapists may address mental health needs in treatment plans. Future studies should examine if nonreferred patients with depressive symptoms achieve maximal functional recovery.

Application of myoelectric elbow flexion assist orthosis in adult traumatic brachial plexus injury: a retrospective clinical study

BACKGROUND

Adult traumatic brachial plexus injuries (BPIs) can result in severe impairment following penetrating wounds, falls, and motor vehicle accidents or other high-energy trauma.

OBJECTIVE

Quantify functional outcomes of adult patients with a BPI using a myoelectric orthosis to restore elbow flexion.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review.

METHODS

A clinic specializing in the BPI treatment at a large academic medical center tested nineteen adult patients with BPI. These patients had failed to achieve antigravity elbow flexion following their injury and observation or surgical reconstruction. They were provided a myoelectric elbow orthosis (MEO) if they had detectable electromyography signals.

RESULTS

There was significant improvement in strength and significant reductions in function and pain when using an MEO. Following initiation of the MEO, 12 of the 19 patients had clinical improvements in muscle strength, 15 patients showed improvement in their DASH, and 13 patients reported improvements in their Visual Analog Scale.

CONCLUSION

The use of an MEO improves elbow flexion strength, increases function, and reduces pain in the majority of patients with BPI and inadequate elbow flexion following observation or surgical reconstruction.

The minimal clinically important difference of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function and upper extremity computer adaptive tests and QuickDASH in the setting of elbow trauma

Background

Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) estimates are useful for gauging clinical relevance when interpreting changes or differences in patient-reported outcomes scores. These values are lacking in the setting of elbow trauma. Our primary purpose was to estimate the MCID of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF) computer adaptive test (CAT), the PROMIS upper extremity (UE) CAT, and the QuickDASH using an anchor-based approach for patients recovering from elbow trauma and related surgeries. Secondarily, we aimed to estimate the MCID using the 1/2 standard deviation method.

Materials & methods

Adult patients undergoing treatment for isolated elbow injuries between July 2014 and April 2020 were identified at a single tertiary academic medical center. Outcomes, including the PROMIS PF CAT v1.2/2.0, PROMIS UE CAT v1.2, and QuickDASH, were collected via a tablet computer. For inclusion, baseline (6 months before injury up to 11 days postoperatively or after injury) and follow-up (11 to 150 days postoperative or after injury) PF or UE CAT scores were required, as well as a response to an anchor question querying improvement in physical function. The MCID was calculated using (1) an anchor-based approach using the difference in mean score change between anchor groups reporting “No change” and “Slightly Improved/Improved” and (2) the 1/2 standard deviation method.

Results

Of the 146 included patients, the mean age was 46 ± 18 years and 67 (46%) were women. Most patients (129 of 146 or 88%) were recovering from surgery, and the remaining 12% were recovering from nonoperatively managed fractures and/or dislocations. The mean follow-up was 157 ± 192 days. Scores for each instrument improved significantly between baseline and follow-up. Anchor-based MCID values were calculated as follows: 5.7, 4.6, and 5.3 for the PROMIS PF CAT, PROMIS UE CAT, and QuickDASH, respectively. MCID values estimated using the 1/2 standard deviation method were 4.3, 4.8, and 11.7 for the PROMIS PF CAT, PROMIS UE CAT, and QuickDASH, respectively.

Conclusions

In the setting of elbow trauma, we propose MCID ranges of 4.3 to 5.7 for the PROMIS PF CAT, 4.6 to 4.8 for the PROMIS UE CAT, and 5.3 to 11.7 for the QuickDASH. These values will provide a framework for clinical relevance when interpreting clinical outcomes studies, or powering clinical trials, for populations recovering from trauma.

Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for the PROMIS Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test Version 2.0 in a Nonshoulder Hand and Upper Extremity Population

PURPOSE

Our primary purpose was to calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity (UE) Computer Adaptive Test (CAT) version 2.0 (v2.0) for a nonshoulder hand and upper extremity population. Secondarily, we calculated the PROMIS Physical Function (PF) CAT v2.0 and the abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) MCID.

METHODS

Adult patients treated by 1 of 5 fellowship-trained hand surgeons between March 2015 and September 2019 at an academic tertiary institution were identified. The PROMIS UE CAT v2.0, PROMIS PF CAT v2.0, and QuickDASH were collected via tablet computer. Inclusion required response to at least 1 of the instruments at both baseline and follow-up (6 ± 4 weeks), and a response to the anchor question: "Compared to your first evaluation at the University Orthopaedic Center, how would you describe your physical function level now?" An additional anchor question assessing treatment-related improvement was also asked. The MCID was calculated using an anchor-based approach using the mean change difference between groups reporting no change and slight change for both anchor questions, and with the 1/2 SD method.

RESULTS

Of 2,106 participants, mean age was 48 ± 17 years, 53% were female, and 53% were recovering from surgery. Of these patients, 381 completed the PROMISE UE CAT v2.0, 497 completed the PROMIS PF CAT v2.0, and 2,018 completed the QuickDASH. The score change between baseline and follow-up was significantly different between anchor groups for both anchor-based MCID calculations. Anchor-based MCID values were 3.0 to 4.0 for the UE CAT, 2.1 to 3.6 for the PF CAT, and 10.3 for the QuickDASH. The MCID values per the 1/2 SD method were 4.1, 4.1, and 10.2, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose MCID ranges of 3.0 to 4.1 for the PROMIS UE CAT v2.0, and 2.1 to 4.1 for the PROMIS PF CAT v2.0. The observed QuickDASH MCID values (10.2-10.3) are within the range of previously published values.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

These MCID estimates will aid in interpreting clinical outcomes and in powering clinical studies.

Evaluating Immediate and Short-Term Postoperative Clinical Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Ulnar Shortening for Ulnar Impaction Syndrome Using PROMIS

Background  The early recovery trajectory of patients undergoing ulnar shortening for ulnar impaction syndrome using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is unknown. Questions/Purposes  Using PROMIS Upper Extremity (UE), Physical Function (PF), Pain Interference (PI), and Depression, we asked (1) do patients undergoing operative management for ulnar impaction syndrome present at their preoperative visit with notable impairment?; (2) At immediate follow-up, do patients present with a clinically appreciable change in symptom severity?; and (3) At short-term follow-up, do patients present with a clinically appreciable change in symptom severity? Materials and Methods  We identified patients from 01/2017 to 12/2019 at our institution undergoing ulnar shortening for ulnar impaction syndrome who completed all PROMIS domains at a preoperative visit and at least one postoperative time point (i.e., less than 4 weeks and/or greater than 12 weeks). Distribution- and anchor-based minimal clinically important difference estimates were used to evaluate clinically appreciable changes in symptoms over time. Results  A total of 38 patients met our inclusion criteria. The average change in PROMIS UE, PF, PI, and Depression scores from preoperative to immediate postoperative follow-up were -3.8, -4.3, 3.2, and 0.5, respectively. However, by short-term follow-up, the average change in PROMIS UE, PF, PI, and Depression scores were 3.7, 3.2, -4.7, and -3.9, respectively. Conclusions  Patients have worsening function at the immediate postoperative follow-up. By short-term postoperative follow-up, functional status and PI levels improve. Our findings can help hand surgeons provide evidence-based guidance on expected initial recovery following operative management for ulnar impaction syndrome. Level of Evidence  This is a level II, prognostic study.

Prospective Cohort Study to Investigate Factors Associated With Continued Immobilization of a Nondisplaced Scaphoid Waist Fracture

PURPOSE

The decision to continue immobilization of a nondisplaced scaphoid waist fracture is often based on radiographic appearance (despite evidence that radiographs are unreliable and inaccurate for diagnosing scaphoid union 6-12 weeks after fracture) and fracture tenderness (even though it is influenced by cognitive biases on pain). This may result in unhelpful additional immobilization. We studied nondisplaced scaphoid waist fractures to determine the factors associated with (1) the surgeon's decision to continue cast or splint immobilization at the first visit when cast removal was being considered; (2) greater pain on examination; and (3) the surgeon's concern about radiographic consolidation.

METHODS

We prospectively included 46 patients with a nondisplaced scaphoid waist fracture treated nonoperatively. At the first visit when cast removal was considered - after an average of 6 weeks of immobilization - patients rated pain during 4 examination maneuvers. The treating surgeon assessed union on radiographs and decided whether to continue or discontinue immobilization. Patients completed measures of the following: (1) the degree to which pain limits activities (Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Interactive System [PROMIS] Pain Interference Computer Adaptive Test [CAT], Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire-2); (2) symptoms of depression (PROMIS Depression CAT); and (3) upper extremity function (PROMIS Upper Extremity Function CAT). We used multivariable regression analysis to investigate the factors associated with each outcome.

RESULTS

Perceived inadequate radiographic healing and greater symptoms of depression were independently associated with continued immobilization. Pain during the examination was not associated with continued immobilization. Patient age was associated with pain on examination. Shorter immobilization duration was the only factor associated with the surgeon's perception of inadequate radiographic consolidation.

CONCLUSIONS

Inadequate radiographic healing and greater symptoms of depression are associated with a surgeon's decision to continue cast or splint immobilization of a nondisplaced scaphoid waist fracture.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Overreliance on radiographs and inadequate accounting for psychological distress may hinder the adoption of shorter immobilization times for nondisplaced waist fractures.

Performance of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores compared with legacy metrics in evaluating outcomes after surgical treatment for osteochondritis dissecans of the humeral capitellum

BACKGROUND

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores have not previously been used to measure long-term outcomes in operatively treated capitellar osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) patients. The aims of our study were to (1) assess patients' long-term outcomes using PROMIS scores, (2) compare the performance of PROMIS with other validated elbow legacy metrics, and (3) evaluate ceiling and floor effects in these outcome measures in patients undergoing surgical treatment for capitellar OCD.

METHODS

We evaluated demographic characteristics, procedure details, preoperative PROMIS scores, and associated sports information in surgically treated pediatric capitellar OCD patients. An online survey was sent to the study participants, including the Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic (KJOC) shoulder and elbow score, the quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire, and the Liverpool Elbow Score patient-answered questionnaire, as well as the Mobility, Pain Interference, and Upper Extremity questionnaires from the PROMIS pediatrics bank. Correlations were evaluated between outcome measures. Ceiling and floor effects were evaluated for each outcome measure.

RESULTS

Completed surveys were obtained for 57 patients (59 elbows). The mean patient age at surgery was 14 years (range, 10-18 years). The mean follow-up time was 6 years (standard deviation, 5 years; range, 1-18 years). The mean PROMIS Mobility score improved from 41.2 preoperatively to 55.2 postoperatively (P < .001). The mean Pain Interference score decreased from 46.9 preoperatively to 38 postoperatively (P < .001). The mean Upper Extremity score improved from 42.7 preoperatively to 53.2 postoperatively (P < .001). Significant correlations were observed between all legacy metrics and postoperative PROMIS scores (|r| > 0.54, P < .001). Ceiling or floor effects were seen in all legacy metrics and PROMIS scores. The KJOC score was least affected by ceiling or floor effects.

CONCLUSION

There is a strong correlation between PROMIS scores and legacy measures evaluating outcomes after surgical management of capitellar OCD. However, large ceiling and floor effects were present in all measures, likely owing to the favorable clinical results. The KJOC score was limited the least by ceiling and floor effects.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the PROMIS Upper-Extremity Computer Adaptive Test and QuickDASH for Ligament Reconstruction Tendon Interposition Patients

PURPOSE

To calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test (UE CAT) and Quick-Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) for ligament reconstruction tendon interposition (LRTI) patients.

METHODS

Adult patients treated with LRTI for trapeziometacarpal OA by fellowship-trained hand surgeons between December 2014 and February 2018 at an academic tertiary institution were included. Outcomes were prospectively collected at each visit by tablet computer, including the QuickDASH, PROMIS UE, Pain Interference, Depression, and Anxiety CATs. Inclusion required a response to the anchor question "How much relief and/or improvement do you feel you have experienced as a result of your treatment?" on a 6-option Likert scale, as well as preoperative (≤120 days before surgery) and follow-up (2-26 weeks) outcomes. We calculated MCID both by an anchor-based approach using the mean score of the minimal change group, and with the 0.5 SD method.

RESULTS

Of 145 included participants, mean age was 63 ± 8 years and 74% were female. Anchor-based MCID estimates for the total cohort were 4.2 for the PROMIS UE CAT and 8.8 for the QuickDASH. The MCID estimates using the 0.5 SD method were 4.8 and 11.7, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose MCID values of 4.2 to 4.8 for the PROMIS UE CAT and 8.8 to 11.7 for the QuickDASH when powering clinical studies or when assessing improvement among a cohort of patients who have undergone LRTI surgery.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Minimal clinically important difference estimates are helpful when interpreting clinical outcomes after LRTI and for powering prospective trials.

Reliability of Telephone Acquisition of the PROMIS Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test

PURPOSE

Our primary purpose was to evaluate the reliability of telephone administration of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity (UE) Computer Adaptive Test (CAT) version 2.0 in a hand and upper extremity population, and secondarily to make comparisons with the abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH).

METHODS

Patients more than 1 year out from hand surgeries performed at a single tertiary institution were enrolled. Half of the patients completed telephone PROMIS UE CAT and QuickDASH surveys first, followed by computer-based surveys 1 to 10 days later, and the other half completed them in the reverse order. Telephone surveys were readministered 2 to 6 weeks later to evaluate test-retest reliability. Concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs) were used to assess agreement between telephone and computer-based scores, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to assess test-retest reliability. The proportion of patients with discrepancies in follow-up scores that exceeded estimates of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was evaluated.

RESULTS

For the 89 enrolled patients, the PROMIS UE CAT CCC was 0.82 (83% confidence interval [83% CI], 0.77-0.86; good), which was significantly lower than 0.92 (83% CI, 0.89-0.94; good to excellent) for the QuickDASH. The PROMIS UE CAT ICC did not differ significantly from the QuickDASH (0.85 and 0.91, respectively). Differences in telephone versus computer scores exceeded 5 points (MCID estimate) for the PROMIS UE CAT in 34% of patients versus 5% of patients exceeding 14 points (MCID estimate) for the QuickDASH.

CONCLUSIONS

Significantly better reliability was observed for the QuickDASH than the PROMIS UE CAT when comparing telephone with computer-based score acquisition. Over one-third of patients demonstrated a clinically relevant difference in scores between the telephone and the computer-administered tests. We conclude that the PROMIS UE CAT should only be administered through computer-based methods.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that differences in collection methods for the PROMIS UE CAT may systematically affect the scores obtained, which may erroneously influence the interpretation of postoperative scores for hand surgery patients.

The PROMIS Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test Correlates With Previously Validated Metrics in Patients With Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Background: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity (PROMIS UE) computer adaptive test was developed to improve precision and reduce question burden. We hypothesized that in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS): (1) PROMIS UE would correlate with established patient-reported outcome measures (PROs); (2) the time and number of questions required would be lower than current metrics; (3) there would be no floor or ceiling effects; and (4) PROMIS UE would not correlate with disease severity. Methods: Patients undergoing electrodiagnostic evaluation found to have a primary diagnosis of unilateral CTS prospectively completed PROMIS UE, Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (qDASH), and Boston Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Questionnaire (BCTQ). Electrophysiologic and clinical severity was recorded. The relationships among PROs were described with Spearman coefficients. A floor or ceiling effect was confirmed if >15% of patients achieved the lowest or highest possible score, respectively. Results: Fifty-one patients (average, 53.9 years) were enrolled. An excellent correlation was identified between PROMIS UE and qDASH (R = -0.76, P < .001). There was a good correlation between PROMIS UE and BCTQ (R = -0.58, P < 0.001). The PROMIS UE required less time and fewer questions than qDASH and BCTQ (P = .02 and P < .001). There were no floor or ceiling effects. Neither neurophysiologic nor clinical severity correlated with PROMIS UE (R = 0.24, P > .05 and R = -0.18, P > .05). Conclusions: The PROMIS UE has an excellent correlation with qDASH and a good correlation with BCTQ in patients with CTS. Furthermore, PROMIS UE required less time and fewer questions than established PROs. Used as a single PRO, PROMIS UE represents a practical alternative to current metrics in patients with CTS.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Validation in Hip Arthroscopy: A Shift Towards Reducing Survey Burden

Background The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) was developed to provide measures of patient-reported symptoms and healthcare outcomes across a variety of conditions in an easily accessible manner. The purpose of this study was to validate PROMIS against traditional legacy measures in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoral acetabular impingement (FAI). Methodology Outcome measures collected pre- and post-operatively included PROMIS Pain Interference (PI) and Physical Function (PF), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living and Sport (HOS-ADL and HOS-Sport), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Pearson's correlation coefficients were calculated between each outcome measure. Results Strong correlations were observed between the PROMIS PF T-Score and the mHHS (r = 0.64-0.83, p < 0.0001), HOS-ADL (r = 0.54-0.81, p < 0.0001), HOS-Sport (r = 0.55-0.74, p < 0.0001), and NAHS (r = 0.61-0.78, p < 0.0001) measurement tools. PROMIS Computer Adaptive Testing PI T-Score and VAS also demonstrated a strong correlation (r = 0.64-0.80, p < 0.0001). Conclusions PROMIS PF scores correlate strongly with mHHS, HOS-ADL, HOS-Sport, and NAHS scores at all time points. Likewise, PROMIS PI scores correlate strongly with VAS pain scores. On average, patients completing PROMIS need to fill out only four or five questions. This study supports the use of PROMIS as an efficient, valid outcome tool for patients with FAI undergoing hip arthroscopy.

Reporting and utilization of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) measures in orthopedic research and practice: a systematic review

Background

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System^Ⓡ (PROMIS^Ⓡ) is a dynamic system of psychometrically sound patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. There has been a recent increase in the use of PROMIS measures, yet little has been written about the reporting of these measures in the field of orthopedics. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review to determine the uptake of PROMIS measures across orthopedics and to identify the type of PROMIS measures and domains that are most commonly used in orthopedic research and practice.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus using keywords and database-specific subject headings to capture orthopedic studies reporting PROMIS measures through November 2018. Our inclusion criteria were use of PROMIS measures as an outcome or used to describe a population of patients in an orthopedic setting in patients ≥ 18 years of age. We excluded non-quantitative studies, reviews, and case reports.

Results

Our final search yielded 88 studies published from 2013 through 2018, with 57% (50 studies) published in 2018 alone. By body region, 28% (25 studies) reported PROMIS measures in the upper extremity (shoulder, elbow, hand), 36% (32 studies) reported PROMIS measures in the lower extremity (hip, knee, ankle, foot), 19% (17 studies) reported PROMIS measures in the spine, 10% (9 studies) reported PROMIS measures in trauma patients, and 6% (5 studies) reported PROMIS measures in general orthopedic patients. The majority of studies reported between one and three PROMIS domains (82%, 73 studies). The PROMIS Computerized Adaptive Test (CAT) approach was most commonly used (81%, 72 studies). The most frequently reported PROMIS domains were physical function (81%, 71 studies) and pain interference (61%, 54 studies).

Conclusion

Our review found an increase in the reporting of PROMIS measures over the recent years. Utilization of PROMIS measures in orthopedic populations is clinically appropriate and can facilitate communication of outcomes across different provider types and with reduced respondent burden.

Registration

The protocol for this systematic review was designed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines and is registered with the PROSPERO database (CRD42018088260).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13018-020-02068-9.

Accuracy and Validity of Computer Adaptive Testing for Outcome Assessment in Patients Undergoing Total Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Computerized adaptive test (CAT) questionnaires may allow standardization of patient-reported outcome measures and reductions in questionnaire burden. We evaluated the validity, accuracy, and efficacy of a CAT system in patients with end-stage osteoarthritis undergoing total knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

CAT Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOS) and CAT KOOS-JR questionnaires were applied to 1871 standard form KOOS and 1493 KOOS-JR patient responses, respectively. Mean, standard deviations, Pearson's correlation coefficients, interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), frequency distribution plots, and Bland-Altman plots were used to compare the precision, validity, and accuracy between CAT scores and full-form scores.

RESULTS

There was a mean reduction of 14 questions (33%) in the CAT KOOS and 1.4 questions (20%) with the CAT KOOS-JR version, compared with the standard KOOS and KOOS-JR surveys, respectively. There were no significant differences between KOOS and CAT KOOS scores with respect to pain (P = .66), symptoms (P = .43), quality of life (P = .99), activities of daily living (P = .68), and sports (P = .84). Similarly, there were no significant differences between the standard form KOOS-JR and CAT KOOS-JR scores (P = .94). There were strong correlations with minimal variability between the CAT KOOS and standard KOOS questionnaires for pain (r = 0.98, ICC: 0.98), symptoms (r = 0.97, ICC: 0.97), quality of life scores (r = 0.99, ICC: 0.99), activities of daily living scores (r = 0.99, ICC: 0.99), and sports scores (r = 0.99, ICC: 0.99). Similarly, there were strong correlations between the KOOS-JR and the CAT KOOS-JR scores (r = 0.99, ICC: 0.99).

CONCLUSION

CAT KOOS and the CAT KOOS-JR versions are accurate and reduce questionnaire burden up to one-third compared with standard surveys. CAT versions may improve patient compliance and decrease fatigue.

Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) in Hand Surgery: Does a One-Question Outcome Instrument Compare Favorably?

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outcome measures are increasingly used to measure patient status, impairments, and disability, but often require lengthy surveys and place a considerable burden on patients. We hypothesized that the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), composed of a single question, would be a valid and responsive instrument to provide a global assessment of hand function.

METHODS

The SANE, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Upper Extremity (PROMIS-UE), and Quick-Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) data are routinely collected electronically in our hand and upper-extremity center. To identify our cohort, we used Current Procedural Terminology codes to query our electronic medical record research data repository for the 7 most common hand surgery procedures performed over 2 years from December 2016 to 2018. These procedures included carpal tunnel release, trigger finger release, thumb carpometacarpal arthroplasty, wrist arthroscopy, distal radius fracture fixation, first dorsal compartment release, and cubital tunnel release. Patients undergoing a single isolated procedure with questionnaires obtained in the preoperative and/or postoperative period were included in the analysis. Convergent validity, coverage, and responsiveness for each instrument were assessed.

RESULTS

We identified 214 patients for inclusion. The SANE score had a moderate to strong correlation with the QuickDASH and PROMIS-UE. Floor and ceiling effects for the SANE were less than 10% at baseline and follow-up. Overall, the QuickDASH was the most responsive, followed by SANE and PROMIS-UE; all 3 instruments exceeded the acceptable thresholds for responsiveness and demonstrated significant changes before to after surgery. Responsiveness of the SANE varied by procedure and was acceptable for carpal tunnel release, carpometacarpal arthroplasty, wrist arthroscopy, and trigger finger release.

CONCLUSIONS

The single-item SANE is a reasonable measure of global function in patients undergoing common hand procedures and demonstrates psychometric properties comparable to those of the PROMIS-UE and QuickDASH outcome scores.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The SANE score is a reasonable outcome measure of global hand function that may have utility in demonstrating response to treatment in a practice setting and may provide a useful adjunct to multiple-item measures in clinical research studies.

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the PROMIS and QuickDASH Instruments in a Nonshoulder Hand and Upper Extremity Patient Population

PURPOSE

The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is used in research and clinical settings as a benchmark to gauge improvement following treatment. The purpose of this study was to provide anchor-based MCID estimates for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and legacy instruments in a nonshoulder hand and upper extremity population.

METHODS

Adult patients (≥18 years) seeking care at a tertiary academic outpatient hand surgery clinic completed patient-reported outcome measures on tablet computers between January 2015 and August 2017. Data were collected at baseline and at 6 ± 2 weeks of follow-up. The PROMIS Upper Extremity (UE), Physical Function (PF), and Pain Interference (PI) Computer Adaptive Test (CAT) instruments were administered, along with the shortened Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH). A mean change anchor-based method was used to estimate MCIDs by comparing scores between anchor groups reporting no change versus slightly improved in terms of function and pain.

RESULTS

Scores for each instrument significantly improved over the study period. With significant differences in scores between groups reporting no change and slightly improved function, anchor-based MCID estimates were calculated as follows: 2.1 for the PROMIS UE CAT, 1.7 for the PROMIS PF CAT, and 6.8 for the QuickDASH. There was no significant difference in PROMIS PI CAT scores between anchor groups when queried for level of pain improvement, precluding estimation of an anchor-based MCID.

CONCLUSIONS

We have provided anchor-based MCID estimates for the PROMIS UE CAT, PROMIS PF CAT, and the QuickDASH for a general nonshoulder hand and upper extremity population. These values may be useful in future research for informing power calculations and when interpreting whether the magnitude of change on these instruments is clinically significant at a population level.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study provides clinicians with a reference for values that may reflect clinically meaningful changes in scores for patient-reported outcome instruments commonly utilized in the current hand surgery literature.

Graded response model fit, measurement invariance and (comparative) precision of the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS® Upper Extremity V2.0 item bank in patients with upper extremity disorders

BACKGROUND

The Dutch-Flemish PROMIS® Upper Extremity (DF-PROMIS-UE) V2.0 item bank was recently developed using Item Response Theory (IRT). Unknown for this bank are: (1) if it is legitimate to calculate IRT-based scores for short forms and Computerized Adaptive Tests (CATs), which requires that the items meet the assumptions of and fit the IRT-model (Graded Response Model [GRM]);(2) if it is legitimate to compare (sub) groups of patients using this measure, which requires measurement invariance; and (3) the precision of the estimated patients' scores for patients with different levels of functioning and compared to legacy measures. Aims were to evaluate (1) the assumptions of and fit to the GRM, (2) measurement invariance and (3) (comparative) precision of the DF-PROMIS-UE v2.0.

METHODS

Cross-sectional data were collected in Dutch patients with upper extremity disorders. Assessed were IRT-assumptions (unidimensionality [bi-factor analysis], local independence [residual correlations], monotonicity [coefficient H]), GRM item fit, measurement invariance (absence of Differential Item Functioning [DIF] due to age, gender, center, duration, and location of complaints) and precision (standard error of IRT-based scores across levels of functioning). To study measurement invariance for language [Dutch vs. English], additional US data were used. Legacy instruments were the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), the QuickDASH and the Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ).

RESULTS

In total 521 Dutch (mean age ± SD = 51 ± 17 years, 49% female) and 246 US patients (mean age ± SD = 48 ± 14 years, 69% female) participated. The DF-PROMIS-UE v2.0 item bank was sufficiently unidimensional (Omega-H = 0.80, Explained Common Variance = 0.68), had negligible local dependence (four out of 1035 correlations > 0.20), good monotonicity (H = 0.63), good GRM fit (no misfitting items) and demonstrated sufficient measurement invariance. Precise estimates (Standard Error < 3.2) were obtained for most patients (7-item short form, 88.5%; standard CAT, 91.3%; and, fixed 7-item CAT, 87.6%). The DASH displayed better reliability than the DF-PROMIS-UE short form and standard CAT, the QuickDASH displayed comparable reliability. The MHQ-ADL displayed better reliability than the DF-PROMIS-UE short form and standard CAT for T-scores between 28 and 50. For patients with low function, the DF-PROMIS-UE measures performed better.

CONCLUSIONS

The DF-PROMIS-UE v2.0 item bank showed sufficient psychometric properties in Dutch patients with UE disorders.

Performance of Pediatric PROMIS CATs in Children With Upper Extremity Fractures

Background: This study was designed to quantify the performance of the pediatric Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) when delivered as part of routine care to children with upper extremity (UE) fractures. Methods: This cross-sectional study analyzed 964 new pediatric patients presenting with an UE fracture. All patients completed PROMIS computer adaptive tests for pain interference, peer relationships, UE function, and mobility domains at clinic registration. PROMIS was completed by parent-proxy (n = 418) for 5- to 7-year-olds and self-reported by 8- to 10-year-olds (n = 546). PROMIS score distributions were defined, and Pearson correlations assessed the interrelation between PROMIS domains. Student's t tests compared mean PROMIS scores between parent-proxy and self-completion groups. Results: UE scores indicated the greatest average impairment of all PROMIS domains. However, 13% of patients reached the UE score ceiling indicating maximal UE function. UE scores and mobility scores had a strong positive correlation while UE scores had a moderate negative correlation with pain interference. In all patients, peer relationships were, at most, very weakly correlated with any other PROMIS domain. After grouping by fracture type, parent-proxy completion estimated worse UE function, more pain interference, and worse peer relationship. Conclusions: Pediatric PROMIS UE function scores capture impairment from UE fractures but do have a strong positive correlation with pediatric PROMIS Mobility, which assesses lower extremity function. Among children with UE fractures, parent-proxy completion of pediatric PROMIS appears associated with worse scores on most PROMIS domains.

What Are the Floor and Ceiling Effects of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Computer Adaptive Test Domains in Orthopaedic Patients? A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review to answer the following: (1) What are the floor and ceiling (F/C) effects of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computer adaptive test (CAT) domains of physical function (PF), upper extremity physical function (UE), pain interference (PI), and depression (D) in adult orthopaedic patients? (2) Do the PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-PI domains have differing F/C effects depending on use in upper extremity, lower extremity, spine, neck, and back, or trauma patients?.

METHODS

(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed, the review was registered on PROSPERO, and the methodological index for non-randomized studies was used for this systematic review. Studies reporting the F/C effects of at least 1 of 4 PROMIS CAT domains in orthopaedic patient cohorts accessed through PubMed and Embase on October 30, 2018, were included. F/C effects for each study were reported within forest plots.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies were included. Generally, varying cohorts demonstrated no F/C effects for PROMIS-PF (0%-9.0%), variable ceiling effects for PROMIS-UE (lower in v2.0; 0%-28.2%), variable floor effects for PROMIS-PI (0%-19.0%), and significant floor effects for PROMIS-D (0.4%-23.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

The orthopaedic literature demonstrated generally favorable floor and ceiling effects for PROMIS CAT domains, with the exception of variable ceiling effects for PROMIS-UE (the newer version exhibits only minor effects), variable floor effects for PROMIS-PI, and significant floor effects for PROMIS-D. In addition, the F/C effects of PROMIS-PF did not vary based on patient population. Although the floor effects of PROMIS-PI did vary based on patient population, the variability does not appear to be based solely on anatomic location. The PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-UE v2.0 demonstrate consistently low floor and ceiling effects. However, the PROMIS-PI and PROMIS-D may need modification before widespread adoption for clinical and research purposes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; systematic review of Level I-III studies.

Accuracy and Validity of Computer Adaptive Testing for Outcome Assessment in Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Probability-based computer algorithms that reduce patient burden are currently in high demand. These computer adaptive testing (CAT) methods improve workflow and reduce patient frustration, while achieving high measurement precision. In this study, we evaluated the accuracy and validity of the CAT Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) and the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Joint Replacement (HOOS-JR) by comparing them to the full version of these scoring systems in a subset of patients who had undergone total hip arthroplasties.

METHODS

A previously developed CAT HOOS and HOOS-JR was applied to 354 and 1547 HOOS and HOOS-JR patient responses, respectively. Mean, standard deviations, Pearson's correlation coefficients, interclass correlation coefficients, frequency distribution plots, and Bland-Altman plots were used to compare the precision, validity, and accuracy between CAT scores and full-form scores.

RESULTS

By modifying the questions to past responses, the CAT HOOS demonstrated a mean reduction of 30% of questions (28 vs 40 questions). There were no significant differences between the full HOOS and CAT HOOS with respect to pain (P = .73), symptoms (P = .94), quality of life (P = .99), activities of daily living (P = .82), and sports (P = .99). There were strong linear relationships between the CAT versions and the standard questionnaires (r > 0.99). The Bland-Altman plot showed that differences between CAT HOOS and full HOOS were independent of the overall scores.

CONCLUSION

The CAT HOOS and HOOS-JR have high correlation and require fewer questions to finish compared to the standard full-form questionnaires. This may represent a reliable and practical alternative that may be less burdensome to patients and may help improve compliance for reporting outcome metrics.

Preoperative PROMIS Scores Predict Postoperative PROMIS Score Improvement for Patients Undergoing Hand Surgery

Background: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) can be used alongside preoperative patient characteristics to set postsurgery expectations. This study aimed to analyze whether preoperative scores can predict significant postoperative PROMIS score improvement. Methods: Patients undergoing hand and wrist surgery with initial and greater than 6-month follow-up PROMIS scores were assigned to derivation or validation cohorts, separating trauma and nontrauma conditions. Receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated for the derivation cohort to determine whether preoperative PROMIS scores could predict postoperative PROMIS score improvement utilizing minimal clinically important difference principles. Results: In the nontrauma sample, patients with baseline Physical Function (PF) scores below 31.0 and Pain Interference (PI) and Depression scores above 68.2 and 62.2, respectively, improved their postoperative PROMIS scores with 95%, 96%, and 94% specificity. Patients with baseline PF scores above 52.1 and PI and Depression scores below 49.5 and 39.5, respectively, did not substantially improve their postoperative PROMIS scores with 94%, 93%, and 96% sensitivity. In the trauma sample, patients with baseline PF scores below 34.8 and PI and Depression scores above 69.2 and 62.2, respectively, each improved their postoperative PROMIS scores with 95% specificity. Patients with baseline PF scores above 52.1 and PI and Depression scores below 46.6 and 44.0, respectively, did not substantially improve their postoperative scores with 95%, 94%, and 95% sensitivity. Conclusions: Preoperative PROMIS PF, PI, and Depression scores can predict postoperative PROMIS score improvement for a select group of patients, which may help in setting expectations. Future work can help determine the level of true clinical improvement these findings represent.

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

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.

Clinical characteristics associated with depression or anxiety among patients presenting for knee surgery

BACKGROUND

Preoperative depression and anxiety in patients undergoing surgery have been shown to be associated with increased postoperative complications, decreased functional improvement, and long-term dissatisfaction. The purpose of this prospective study was to measure the relationship between a diagnosis of depression or anxiety and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) domains, as well as determine which preoperative factors are associated with depression or anxiety in patients undergoing knee surgery. We hypothesized that preoperative depression and/or anxiety would be associated with worse preoperative pain, function, and general health status.

METHODS

Three-hundred and eighty-six patients undergoing knee surgery between 2015 and 2017 were administered health-related quality of life measures preoperatively, and their medical records were reviewed for relevant medical history. A propensity matched analysis was performed to determine clinical factors independently associated with preoperative depression and/or anxiety.

RESULTS

The overall study population consisted of 216 males and 170 females, with a mean age of 39.4 ± 16.2 years. From this overall cohort, 43 (11.1%) patients had a positive preoperative diagnosis of depression and/or anxiety. After controlling for covariate imbalances, preoperative depression/anxiety was independently associated with PROMIS Anxiety (p = 0.018), PROMIS Depression (p < 0.019), and Tegner pre-injury (p = 0.013) scores. Regression analysis also determined that preoperative depression/anxiety was independently associated with arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) (p = 0.004), total knee arthroplasty (TKA) (p = 0.019), and uni-compartmental knee arthroplasty (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The results support our hypothesis that preoperative depression/anxiety is associated with worse preoperative pain, function, and general health status. Furthermore, PROMIS Anxiety and Depression tools offer a reliable means of measuring psychological distress in the orthopaedic knee population. Similar to other studies, we also noted psychological comorbidity to be independently associated with ACLR and TKA.

Translation, cross-cultural and construct validity of the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS® upper extremity item bank v2.0

PURPOSE

To develop a Dutch-Flemish translation of the PROMIS® upper extremity (PROMIS-UE) item bank v2.0, and to investigate its cross-cultural and construct validity as well as its floor and ceiling effects in patients with musculoskeletal UE disorders.

METHODS

State of the art translation methodology was used to develop the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS-UE item bank v2.0. The item bank and four legacy instruments were administered to 205 Dutch patients with musculoskeletal UE disorders visiting an orthopedic outpatient clinic. The validity of cross-cultural comparisons between English and Dutch patients was evaluated by studying differential item functioning (DIF) for language (Dutch vs. English) with ordinal logistic regression models and McFadden's pseudo R²-change of ≥ 2% as critical value. Construct validity was assessed by formulating a priori hypotheses and calculating correlations with legacy instruments. Floor/ceiling effects were evaluated by determining the proportion of patients who achieved the lowest/highest possible raw score.

RESULTS

Eight items showed DIF for language, but their impact on the test score was negligible. The item bank correlated, as hypothesized, moderately with the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS pain intensity item (Pearson's r = - 0.43) and strongly with the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire, Subscale Disability/Symptoms (Spearman's ρ = - 0.87), the Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis (ρ = - 0.86), and the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, Subscale Activities of Daily Living (ρ = 0.87). No patients achieved the lowest or highest possible raw score.

CONCLUSIONS

A Dutch-Flemish PROMIS-UE item bank v2.0 has been developed that showed sufficient cross-cultural and construct validity as well as absence of floor and ceiling effects.

Establishing "Normal" Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function and Pain Interference Scores: A True Reference Score According to Adults Free of Joint Pain and Disability

Numerous recent studies have demonstrated the validity and efficiency of the National Institutes of Health Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) forms in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgical procedures. It is assumed that a score of 50 in each domain represents the health state of a “reference” population, but this threshold has not been definitively proven. In order to truly assess whether a given orthopaedic intervention is successful, the comparative scores of healthy individuals must be known for any given health domain measured. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine baseline scores for the PROMIS general physical function (PROMIS-PF), pain interference (PROMIS-PI), and upper-extremity physical function (PROMIS-UE) domains in physically healthy, asymptomatic adult individuals. We hypothesized that, in individuals <40 years old, the mean PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-UE scores would be >50 and PROMIS-PI scores would be <50. We further hypothesized that these scores would be impacted by participant age.

Floor and Ceiling Effects, Time to Completion, and Question Burden of PROMIS CAT Domains Among Shoulder and Knee Patients Undergoing Nonoperative and Operative Treatment

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computer adaptive tests (CATs) have emerged as an efficient technique for measuring patient-reported outcomes among orthopaedic patients. The purpose of this study was to investigate the floor and ceiling (F/C) effects, time to completion (TTC), and question burden of PROMIS CATs administered to patients presenting to a shoulder and sports medicine orthopaedic clinic.

PROMIS Physical Function Short Forms Display Item- and Scale-Level Characteristics at Least as Good as the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVE

To compare dimensionality, item-level characteristics, scale-level reliability, and construct validity of PROMIS Physical Function short forms (PROMIS-PF) and 24-item Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ-24) in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Secondary care center for rehabilitation and rheumatology.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with nonspecific LBP ≥3 months (N=768). Mean age was 49±13 years, 77% were female, and 54% displayed pain for more than 5 years.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Dutch versions of the 4-, 6-, 8-, 10-, and 20-item PROMIS-PF and of the RMDQ-24.

RESULTS

PROMIS-PF-6, PROMIS-PF-8, and RMDQ-24 exhibited sufficient unidimensionality (confirmatory factor analysis: comparative fit index>0.950, Tucker-Lewis index>0.950, root means square error of approximation<0.060), whereas the other instruments did not. All instruments were free of local dependence except PROMIS-PF-20 with 4 item pairs with clear residual correlations. Mokken scale analysis found 1 nonmonotone item for PROMIS-PF-20 and 8 for RMDQ-24 (ie, the probability of endorsing these items was not increasing with increasing level on the underlying construct). PROMIS-PF-20 displayed 2 misfitting items (S-χ²P value>.001). Two-parameter item response theory models found 2 items with low discrimination for RMDQ-24. All other instruments had adequate fit statistics and item parameters. PROMIS-PF-20 displayed the best scale-level reliability. Construct validity was sufficient for all instruments as all hypotheses on expected correlations with other instruments and differences between relevant subgroups were met.

CONCLUSIONS

PROMIS-PF-6, PROMIS-PF-8, and RMDQ-24 exhibited better unidimensionality, whereas PROMIS-PF-4, PROMIS-PF-6, PROMIS-PF-8, and PROMIS-PF-10 showed superior item-level characteristics. PROMIS-PF-20 was the instrument with the best scale-level reliability. This study warrants assessment of other measurement properties of PROMIS-PF short forms in comparison with disease-specific physical functioning instruments in LBP.

Responsiveness of the PROMIS and its Concurrent Validity with Other Region- and Condition-specific PROMs in Patients Undergoing Carpal Tunnel Release

BACKGROUND

The Patient-reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) continues to be an important universal patient-reported outcomes measure (PROM) in orthopaedic surgery. However, there is concern about the performance of the PROMIS as a general health questionnaire in hand surgery compared with the performance of region- and condition-specific PROMs such as the Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ) and the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ), respectively. To ensure that PROMIS domains capture patient-reported outcomes to the same degree as region- and condition-specific PROMs do, comparing PROM performance is necessary.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Which PROMs demonstrate high responsiveness among patients undergoing carpal tunnel release (CTR)? (2) Which of the PROMIS domains (Physical Function [PF], Upper Extremity [UE], and Pain Interference [PI]) demonstrate concurrent validity with the HHQ and BCTQ domains?

METHODS

In this prospective study, between November 2014 and October 2016, patients with carpal tunnel syndrome visiting a single surgeon who elected to undergo CTR completed the BCTQ, MHQ, and PROMIS UE, PF, and PI domains at each visit. A total of 101 patients agreed to participate. Of these, 31 patients (31%) did not return for a followup visit at least 6 weeks after CTR and were excluded, leaving a final sample of 70 patients (69%). We compared the PROMIS against region- and condition-specific PROMs in terms of responsiveness and concurrent validity. Responsiveness was determined using Cohen's d or the effect-size index (ESI). The larger the absolute value of the ESI, the greater the effect size. Using the ESI allows surgeons to better quantify the impact of CTR, with a medium ESI (that is, 0.5) representing a visible clinical change to a careful observer. Concurrent validity was determined using Spearman's correlation coefficient with correlation strengths categorized as excellent (> 0.7), excellent-good (0.61-0.70), good (0.4-0.6), and poor (< 0.4). Significance was set a priori at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Among PROMIS domains, the PI demonstrated the best responsiveness (ESI = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.39-1.08), followed by the UE (ESI = -0.66; 95% CI, -1.00 to -0.31). For the MHQ, the Satisfaction domain had the largest effect size (ESI = -1.48; 95% CI, -1.85 to -1.09), while for the BCTQ, the Symptom Severity domain had the best responsiveness (ESI = 1.54; 95% CI, 1.14-1.91). The PROMIS UE and PI domains demonstrated excellent-good to excellent correlations to the total MHQ and BCTQ-Functional Status scores (preoperative UE to MHQ: ρ = 0.68; PI to MHQ: ρ = 0.74; UE to BCTQ-Functional Status: ρ = 0.74; PI to BCTQ-Functional Status: ρ = 0.67; all p < 0.001), while the PROMIS PF demonstrated poor correlations with the same domains (preoperative PF to MHQ; ρ = 0.33; UE to BCTQ-Functional Status: ρ = 0.39; both p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The PROMIS UE and PI domains demonstrated slightly worse responsiveness than the MHQ and BCTQ domains that was nonetheless acceptable. The PROMIS PF domain was unresponsive. All three PROMIS domains correlated with the MHQ and BCTQ, but the PROMIS UE and PI domains had notably stronger correlations to the MHQ and BCTQ domains than the PF domain did. We feel that the PROMIS UE and PI can be used to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing CTR, while also providing more robust insight into overall health status because they are general PROMs. However, we do not recommend the PROMIS PF for evaluating patients undergoing CTR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, diagnostic study.

Depression and Pain Interference Correlate With Physical Function in Patients Recovering From Hand Surgery

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures vary more than expected based on underlying pathology, in part due to the substantial influence of mood and coping strategies. Methods: This study addressed the primary null hypothesis that the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function score 1 month (range, 3-8 weeks) after hand surgery is not associated with PROMIS Depression and PROMIS Pain Interference scores prior to surgery, accounting for other factors. Using an institution-wide database of routinely collected patient-reported outcomes, we identified adult patients who underwent wrist ganglion excision, trapeziometacarpal arthroplasty, hand ganglion excision, trigger digit, De Quervain, and carpal tunnel release. Measures collected included the PROMIS Physical Function Computerized Adaptive Test (CAT), PROMIS Pain Interference CAT, and PROMIS Depression CAT. We sought factors associated with postsurgical PROMIS Physical Function scores and change between preoperative and postoperative score using multivariable linear regression, accounting for age, sex, surgery type, provider, and time from surgery to postsurgical measurement. Results: Higher postoperative PROMIS Physical Function score was independently associated with lower PROMIS Pain Interference scores, lower PROMIS Depression scores, younger age, and treatment by provider team 3. Greater change in PROMIS Physical Function score was independently associated with greater PROMIS Pain Interference scores, greater time from surgery, and treatment by provider team 3. Conclusions: Mood and effective coping strategies affect the level of symptoms and limitations during recovery from hand surgery and represent important treatment opportunities for enhancing recovery.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference After Carpal Tunnel Release Using the PROMIS Platform

PURPOSE

In light of recently-proposed quality measures for carpal tunnel release (CTR), elucidating the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for selected outcome measures will be important when interpreting treatment responses. Our purpose was to estimate the MCID of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) instruments and the short Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) following CTR.

METHODS

Adult patients undergoing isolated unilateral CTR between July 2014 and October 2016 were identified. Outcomes included the PROMIS Upper Extremity (UE) Computer Adaptive Test (CAT), Physical Function (PF) CAT, QuickDASH, and Pain Interference (PI) CAT. For inclusion, pretreatment baseline (within 60 days of surgery) and postoperative (6-90 days) UE or PF CAT scores were required, as well as a response on a 5-point Likert scale to the question "How much relief and/or improvement do you feel you have experienced as a result of your treatment?" The MCID was calculated using SD and minimum detectable change (MDC) distribution methods.

RESULTS

In response to the Likert scale question, 88.6% of patients reported improvement at a mean of 14.8 days after surgery. The infrequency of patients reporting no change (5 of 44; 11.4%) precluded calculation of a statistically sound anchor-based MCID value. The MCID values, as calculated using the one-half SD method, were 3.6, 4.6, 10.4, and 3.4 for the UE CAT, PF CAT, QuickDASH, and PI CAT, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We have calculated MCID values for the UE CAT, PF CAT, QuickDASH, and PI CAT for patients undergoing CTR. Although the small number of patients reporting no change and minimal change after surgery precluded an anchor-based MCID calculation, we report estimates using the one-half SD method for the MCID following CTR.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

These MCID estimates will be helpful when interpreting CTR clinical outcomes and for powering prospective trials.

Patient Characteristics, Treatment, and Presenting PROMIS Scores Associated with Number of Office Visits for Traumatic Hand and Wrist Conditions

BACKGROUND

Overuse of healthcare resources is burdensome on society. Prior research has demonstrated that many patients with traumatic musculoskeletal injuries continue to seek care long after appropriate healing is well established, suggesting an overuse of services. However, few studies have examined the factors-including patient-reported outcomes-associated with an increased number of clinic visits for traumatic hand and wrist conditions.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) After accounting for surgical treatment, surgeon, and demographic factors, is a patient's PROMIS Pain Interference score associated with the total number of office visits? (2) Is PROMIS Depression, combination of PROMIS Depression and Pain Interference, or Physical Function scores associated with the number of office visits?

METHODS

Between June 2015 and May 2018, 1098 patients presenting for a new patient visit at a single, urban academic medical center for distal radius fracture, wrist or hand sprain, tendon rupture, traumatic finger amputation, or scaphoid fracture were identified. Of those, 823 (75%) patients completed all PROMIS domains and presented before the trailing period and thus were included in this retrospective study. We recorded a number of variables including: Total number of office visits, age, sex, race, marital status, diagnosis, provider, and operative or nonoperative treatment. Multivariable Poisson regression analysis was conducted to determine whether Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Interference (PROMIS PI), Physical Function (PROMIS PF), and Depression scores measured at the first visit were associated with the total number of office visits, after accounting for the other factors we measured.

RESULTS

Higher PROMIS PI scores were associated with greater number of clinic visits (0.0077; 95% CI, 0.0018-0.014; p = 0.010). Although PROMIS Depression scores were not associated with the number of office visits (0.0042; 95% CI, -0.0099 to 0.0094; p = 0.112), higher PROMIS PF scores were associated with fewer office visits when accounting for confounding variables (-0.0077; 95% CI, -0.0012 to -0.0029; p = 0.001). Additionally, across all individual PROMIS models, there was an association between the variables "operative treatment" (PI: 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-0.98; p < 0.001; Depression: 0.87; 95% CI, 0.74-1.0; p < 0.001; PF: 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; p < 0.001) and "traumatic finger amputation" (PI: 0.22; 95% CI, 0.016-0.42; p = 0.034; Depression: 0.2; 95% CI, 0.086-0.47; p = 0.005; PF: 0.21; 95% CI, 0.014-0.41; p = 0.036) with an increased total number of office visits. Provider team 5 (PI: -0.62; 95% CI, -0.98 to -0.27; p = 0.001; Depression: -0.61; 95% CI, -0.96 to -0.26; p = 0.001; PF: -0.60; 95% CI, -0.96 to -0.25; p = 0.001) was associated with fewer office visits. In both the PROMIS Depression and PROMIS PF regression models, increasing age (Depression: -0.0048; 95% CI, -0.0088 to -0.00081; p = 0.018; PF: -0.0045; 95% CI, -0.0085 to -0.0006; p = 0.024) was also associated with fewer total number of office visits.

CONCLUSIONS

This study helps surgeons understand that patients who present at their initial office visit for traumatic hand and wrist conditions displaying worse pain coping strategies and decreased physical function will have more office visits. We recommend that surgeons engage in a comprehensive care approach that is empathetic, fosters effective pain coping strategies (and so might decrease PROMIS PI scores), and educates patients about expectations by providing educational materials and/or including other health professionals (such as, social work, physical therapy, mental health professional) as needed. This may decrease healthcare use in patients with traumatic hand and wrist conditions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, prognostic study.