PROMIS physical function underperforms psychometrically relative to American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score in patients undergoing anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty

Validation of DASH and QuickDASH for Outcome Assessment of Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for Treatment of Advanced Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and its abbreviated version, QuickDASH, are commonly used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for the assessment of an upper-extremity disability. Theoretically, they can be used to compare the treatment outcomes of different upper-extremity conditions. Despite increasingly widespread use for some shoulder conditions, these questionnaires have not been rigorously validated for use to assess the outcomes of patients undergoing anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA). The objective of this study was to validate the DASH and QuickDASH scores for a longitudinal outcome assessment of patients undergoing aTSA to treat advanced glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GHOA).

METHODS

In this study, 450 patients with a median age of 70.3 years (interquartile range [IQR] width, 11.7 years) were included; 52.4% of the patients were female. The DASH and QuickDASH questionnaires, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire were completed preoperatively and at follow-ups of 3 months, 6 to 12 months, and a minimum of 2 years by patients undergoing aTSA. The criterion validity, construct validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the DASH and QuickDASH were assessed.

RESULTS

The DASH and QuickDASH scores demonstrated moderate to very strong correlations with the ASES scores (ρ = -0.83 to -0.62), SST scores (ρ = -0.73 to -0.55), and EQ-5D scores (ρ = -0.72 to -0.57); minimal floor or ceiling effects; internal consistency (Cronbach alpha > 0.80); and large Cohen d and standardized response means (<1.6) at all time points. Very strong positive correlations were observed between the DASH and QuickDASH scores at all time points (ρ = 0.96 to 0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

The DASH and QuickDASH scores, which are region-specific rather than shoulder-specific, are valid, reliable, and responsive PROMs for the evaluation of patients with advanced GHOA treated with aTSA. Therefore, the DASH and QuickDASH scores can be used to compare the outcomes of aTSA for the treatment of advanced GHOA with the outcomes of treatment of other upper-extremity disorders, potentially facilitating comparative cost-effectiveness and value analysis studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Utility of Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System measures in predicting shoulder arthroplasty in patients with shoulder osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

The decision to treat shoulder osteoarthritis (OA) definitively with shoulder arthroplasty (SA) is multifactorial, considering objective findings, subjective information, and patient goals. The first goal of this study was to determine if Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures correlated with patients with shoulder OA who underwent SA within 1 year. The second goal of this study was to determine if score cut-offs in PROMIS domains could further discriminate which shoulder OA patients underwent SA within 1 year.

METHODS

This retrospective case-control study examined patients with a diagnosis of shoulder OA who consulted an orthopedic provider from November 1, 2020 to May 23, 2022, and recorded PROMIS measures in the domains of Physical Function, Depression, and/or Pain Interference. A surgical group was defined as patients who underwent SA within 1 year of the most recent PROMIS measures and the nonsurgical patients were defined as the control group. Mean PROMIS scores were compared between the surgical and control groups. Separate logistic regression models controlling for age, race, ethnicity, and comorbidity count were performed for each PROMIS domain as a 1) continuous variable, and then as 2) binary variable defined by PROMIS score cut-off points to determine which scores correlated with undergoing SA to further characterize the potential clinical utility of PROMIS score cut-offs in relating to undergoing SA.

RESULTS

The surgical group of 478 patients was older (68.2 vs. 63.8 years), more often of White race (82.6% vs. 70.9%), and less often of Hispanic Ethnicity (1.5% vs. 2.9%) than the control group of 3343 patients. Using optimal cut-offs in PROMIS scores, Pain Interference ≥63 (odds ratio [OR] = 2.97 (2.41-3.64), P < .001), Physical Function ≤39 (OR = 1.81 (95% confidence interval, 1.48-2.22), P < .001), and depression ≥49 (OR = 1.82 (95% confidence interval, 1.50-2.22), P < .001) were all found to correlate with undergoing SA within 1 year in multivariable logistic regressions.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study demonstrate that cut-off scores for PROMIS measures differentiated patients undergoing SA within 1 year. These cut-off scores may have clinical utility in aiding in decision-making regarding surgical candidates for SA. Further research is needed to validate these cut-off scores and determine how they relate to patient outcomes after SA.

Global mapping of institutional and hospital-based (Level II-IV) arthroplasty registries: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Four joint arthroplasty registries (JARs) levels exist based on the recorded data type. Level I JARs are national registries that record primary data. Hospital or institutional JARs (Level II-IV) document further data (patient-reported outcomes, demographic, radiographic). A worldwide list of Level II-IV JARs must be created to effectively assess and categorize these data.

METHODS

Our study is a systematic scoping review that followed the PRISMA guidelines and included 648 studies. Based on their publications, the study aimed to map the existing Level II-IV JARs worldwide. The secondary aim was to record their lifetime, publications' number and frequency and recognise differences with national JARs.

RESULTS

One hundred five Level II-IV JARs were identified. Forty-eight hospital-based, 45 institutional, and 12 regional JARs. Fifty JARs were found in America, 39 in Europe, nine in Asia, six in Oceania and one in Africa. They have published 485 cohorts, 91 case-series, 49 case-control, nine cross-sectional studies, eight registry protocols and six randomized trials. Most cohort studies were retrospective. Twenty-three per cent of papers studied patient-reported outcomes, 21.45% surgical complications, 13.73% postoperative clinical and 5.25% radiographic outcomes, and 11.88% were survival analyses. Forty-four JARs have published only one paper. Level I JARs primarily publish implant revision risk annual reports, while Level IV JARs collect comprehensive data to conduct retrospective cohort studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study mapping all Level II-IV JARs worldwide. Most JARs are found in Europe and America, reporting on retrospective cohorts, but only a few report on studies systematically.

Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system depression psychometrically underperforms compared to legacy measures and is poorly associated with postoperative functional outcomes in shoulder arthroplasty patients

Background

The purpose of this study was to investigate the associations between each mental health patient-reported outcome measure with postoperative functional outcomes following shoulder arthroplasty, and to compare psychometric properties of patient-reported outcomes measurement information system depression to the legacy (VR-12 Mental) patient-reported outcome measure.

Methods

Patients who underwent primary shoulder arthroplasty from July 2018 to February 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system depression and VR-12 Mental were administered preoperatively; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation were administered at 6-month and 1-year postoperatively. Rasch partial credit modeling analysis was used to compare psychometric properties of legacy versus patient-reported outcomes measurement information system instruments in assessing mental health.

Results

Ninety-three patients who underwent total shoulder arthroplasty (n = 52), reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (n = 39), or hemiarthroplasty (n = 2) were included. Preoperative VR-12 Mental scores were moderately associated with American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons at 6-months (coefficient: 0.52, P = 0.026) and 1-year (coefficient: 0.65, P = 0.002), while preoperative patient-reported outcomes measurement information system depression scores were not. Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system depression demonstrated significant floor effects (16%); VR-12 Mental demonstrated minimal floor and ceiling effects (1.1% for both). VR-12 Mental demonstrated broader coverage of mental outlook on Rasch modeling than patient-reported outcomes measurement information system depression and had adequate model fit after one round of reiterative item elimination.

Discussion

Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system depression was poorly associated with postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, demonstrated significant floor effects, and had limited coverage of mental health on Rasch modeling with reiterative elimination.

Level of Evidence

IV.

PROMIS physical function and pain perform poorly psychometrically in patients undergoing medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the validity, floor and ceiling effects, and dimensionality of PROMIS Physical Function (PF) and Pain compared to legacy patient reported outcome (PRO) measures in patients undergoing medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction.

METHODS

Patients who underwent MPFL reconstruction between 2018 to 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperatively, patients completed the IKDC, VR-12, Kujala, SF-12, KOOS JR, PROMIS PF and Pain surveys. Inter-survey convergence was assessed with Spearman correlations. Psychometric analysis included investigations of inter-survey convergent validity, intra-survey floor and ceiling effects, and Rasch analyses with person-item fit and iterative question elimination model fit testing.

RESULTS

A total of 76 patients (mean age: 22.6 ± 8.4 years) who completed preoperative surveys were included (compliance: 91.7-96.2%). Preoperatively, age was significantly associated with both PROMIS PF (coefficient:  - 0.291, P = 0.005) and Pain scores (coefficient: 0.294, P = 0.002). PROMIS PF had a Very Good correlation with IKDC and PROMIS Pain had a Very Good correlation with KOOS JR. Other correlations ranged from Poor to Good. No significant floor or ceiling effects were observed for any PRO. On iterative question elimination Rasch modelling, only two questions from PROMIS PF remained after 6 rounds of elimination while PROMIS Pain had no questions remaining after 3 rounds of elimination.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative PROMIS PF and Pain provided only Fair to Good correlations with most legacy PROs. Although no significant floor and ceiling effects were observed, PROMIS PF and Pain did not perform well psychometrically in this population of patients undergoing MPFL reconstruction. These results suggest PROMIS questionnaires should be used with caution in this population, especially if used in isolation, when discussing clinical expectations with patients. The authors recommend continued use of legacy PROs specific to assessment of patellar instability and function that have established validity in patellar instability populations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Trends in shoulder surgery patient-reported outcome measures

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are a vital part of the toolkit for the current practice of orthopedic surgery. We are witnessing the expansion of the use of PROMs in clinical practice and in research; the ultimate direction of this expansion is unclear. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the trends in the use of PROMs in major upper limb publications over a 7-year period. We retrospectively reviewed all articles published in 6 of the most influential upper limb orthopedic journals based on impact factor from January 2013 to January 2020. PubMed, Medline, and Embase were used to access the abstracts for all articles published for this period. We included all articles related to shoulder arthroplasty, shoulder instability, rotator cuff surgery, and involving the use of PROMs. There were 4175 articles identified from the selected journals over the chosen time period, of which 607 were eligible for inclusion in the study. The number of articles reporting PROMs increased from 57 in 2013 to 115 in 2019, which was a 102% increase. The total number of PROM usages recorded was 1593 which was comprised of 63 different scoring systems, with each article using a median of 3 different PROMs. The most commonly used score in articles originating from North America was the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (216 uses in 273 articles; 78.1%), from Europe it was the Constant-Murley Score (129 uses in 183 articles; 70.4%), and from Asia it was the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (80 uses in 126 articles; 63.4%). The use of PROMs is evolving with an increasing prevalence of and diversity of PROMs being used in upper limb surgery. There is geographical variation in the use of PROMs, and a variety of systems used, with only 3 of the top 10 most used PROMs reporting on patient satisfaction or wellbeing. Given that a diverse range of PROMs study a diverse range of conditions and procedures, there may not be a need for a consensus on the best overall use of PROMs, but there may be ideal PROMs suited to answer specific questions.

Assessment of Patient-Reported Physical Function in Persons With Upper Extremity Amputation: Comparison of Short Form Instruments

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare psychometric properties of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System upper extremity measure (PROMIS UE) 7-item short form with 6- and 13-item versions for persons with upper limb amputation.

DESIGN

The study used a telephone survey of 681 persons with upper limb amputation. Versions were scored two ways: PROMIS health measure scoring (PROMIS UE HMSS) and sample-specific calibration (PROMIS UE AMP). Factor analyses and Rasch analyses evaluated unidimensionality, monotonicity, item fit, differential item functioning, and reliability. Known group validity was compared for all versions.

RESULTS

Model fit was acceptable for PROMIS-6 UE AMP and marginally acceptable for PROMIS-13 UE AMP and PROMIS-7 UE AMP. Item response categories were collapsed because of disordered categories. A total of 91.4% of participants had PROMIS-13 UE AMP scores with reliability greater than 0.8, compared with 70.4% for PROMIS-7 UE AMP, and 72.1% for PROMIS-6 UE AMP versions. No differences were observed by prosthesis use. Scores differed by amputation for all measures except the HMSS scored 13- and 7-item versions.

CONCLUSIONS

The PROMIS-13 UE AMP short form was superior to the health measures scoring system scored PROMIS-7 UE or PROMIS-6 UE, and to the PROMIS-7 UE AMP and PROMIS-6 UE AMP. Issues with known group validation suggest a need for a population-specific measure of upper extremity function for persons with upper limb amputation.

Higher preoperative expectations predict better outcomes in shoulder surgery patients

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to determine if preoperative expectations (PE) are an independent predictor of greater 2-year outcomes and greater improvement from baseline in shoulder surgery patients.

METHODS

Two-hundred and sixteen patients who underwent shoulder surgery at one institution were studied. Patients completed both preoperative and 2-year follow-up questionnaires including PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System) computer-adaptive testing in six domains, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, shoulder numeric pain scale (NPS), and the Marx Shoulder Activity Rating Scale (MARS). PE were measured using the Musculoskeletal Outcomes and Data Evaluation Management System (MODEMS) expectations domain, and satisfaction was measured via the Surgical Satisfaction Questionnaire (SSQ-8).

RESULTS

The mean PE score was 86.2 ± 17.8. Greater PE were associated with significantly better 2-year scores for ASES, NPS, MARS, SSQ8, and PROMIS domains of Physical Function, Fatigue, Pain Interference Fatigue and Social Satisfaction. Multivariable analyses demonstrated that greater PE were an independent predictor of both better 2-year scores and greater improvement for PROMIS SS (p < 0.001), ASES (p = 0.007), and shoulder NPS (p = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

Greater PE are positively associated with numerous patient-based outcomes 2 years after surgery. With regards to pain relief, shoulder function, and social satisfaction, higher PE are also predictive of better outcome scores and more improvement. This study suggests that preoperative assessment of shoulder surgery PE is important, and that counseling patients to optimize realistic expectations may lead to superior outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Agreement between the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Society Standardized Shoulder Assessment score (ASES) and the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) in patients presenting with shoulder pathology: A cohort analysis of the Clinical Quality Registry for Outcomes in Shoulder and Elbow Pathology (CROSEP) registry

Background

The choice of patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) used in shoulder studies varies based on clinician's preference and location. This creates difficulties when attempting to compare studies which have used different PROMs as their outcome measure. This study aims to assess the agreement between the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES) and the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), and identify factors associated with agreement.

Methods

Patients with shoulder pathology were identified from a multi-cohort observational practice registry. 1050 paired ASES and OSS pre-treatment scores were prospectively collected. Linear regression was performed to assess the agreement between the PROMs. Mixed-effects analysis of variance was performed to assess the influence of factors associated with agreement.

Results

Regression for mean total and mean function ASES and OSS demonstrated good fit (adjusted R2 57.7%, P < 0.001; and 63.9%, P < 0.001). Mean pain subscore demonstrated a poorer fit (adjusted R2 39.4%, P < 0.001). Crosswalks to convert between mean scores were produced with reasonable precision. Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey score, age and diagnosis cohort influenced agreement.

Conclusion

Mean total and mean function ASES and OSS scores agree well with each other. This allows for a more informed comparison of studies using either PROMs as their outcome measure.

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.

The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score has excellent correlation with the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis score

BACKGROUND/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study was to compare the correlation, responsiveness, and responder and administrator burden of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score with the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) score for patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty. The goal was to determine whether one score was superior to the other to limit the use of multiple scoring measures when tracking patient outcomes. The hypothesis of this study was that for patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty, the WOOS score would have (1) a high level of correlation with the ASES score, (2) comparable responsiveness to the ASES score, and (3) a higher responder and administrator burden than the ASES score.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of a database of patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty in which the ASES score was recorded with the WOOS score. Correlations were determined using the Pearson coefficient. Subgroup analysis was performed to determine whether correlations differed in (1) preoperative outcome and (2) postoperative outcome determinations and by type of arthroplasty (anatomic vs. reverse). Responsiveness was determined by calculating the standardized response mean and the effect size of both scores. Responder and administrator burden was examined using 50 consecutive preoperative patients to determine the number of incorrectly completed WOOS and ASES scores.

RESULTS

The correlation of the ASES and WOOS scores for all patients was excellent (n = 1218, r = 0.88, P < .0001). The correlation of the ASES and WOOS scores was excellent for patients undergoing anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (n = 695, r = 0.71, P < .0001) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (n = 523, r = 0.88, P < .0001). The correlation of preoperative scores was strong-moderate (n = 606, r = 0.62, P < .0001), and that of postoperative scores was strong-moderate (n = 612, r = 0.69, P < .0001). The standardized response mean (WOOS score, 2.1; ASES score, 2.1) and the effect size (WOOS score, 3.0; ASES score, 3.0) demonstrated comparable responsiveness. Twenty-six percent of the WOOS scores were completed incorrectly and were invalid compared with 0% of the ASES scores (P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

There is excellent correlation and comparable responsiveness between the ASES score and WOOS score. Including these scores simultaneously when tracking patient-determined outcomes appears to be redundant and therefore unnecessary. Because there is higher responder and administrative burden for the WOOS score, we recommend use of the ASES score over the WOOS score in patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty.

Establishing clinically significant outcomes of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity questionnaire after primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS

Since its introduction, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity (PROMIS UE) assessment has been increasingly used in shoulder arthroplasty outcome measurement. However, determination of clinically significant outcomes using the PROMIS UE has yet to be investigated following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). We hypothesized that we could establish clinically significant outcomes of the PROMIS UE outcome assessment in patients undergoing primary RTSA and identify significant baseline patient factors associated with achievement of these measures.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing primary RTSA between 2018 and 2019 who received preoperative baseline and follow-up PROMIS UE assessments at 12 months after surgery were retrospectively reviewed. Domain-specific anchor questions pertaining to pain and function assessed at 12 months after surgery were used to determine minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) values for the PROMIS UE using receiver operating characteristic curve and area-under-the-curve (AUC) analysis. Univariate logistic regression analysis was then performed to identify significant patient factors associated with achieving the MCID, SCB, or PASS.

RESULTS

A total of 95 patients met all inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. By use of an anchor-based method, the PASS value was 36.68 (sensitivity, 0.795; specificity, 0.765; AUC, 0.793) and the SCB value was 11.62 (sensitivity, 0.597; specificity, 1.00; AUC, 0.806). By use of a distribution-based method, the MCID value was calculated to be 4.27. Higher preoperative PROMIS UE scores were a positive predictor in achievement of the PASS (odds ratio [OR], 1.107; P = .05), whereas lower preoperative PROMIS UE scores were associated with obtaining SCB (OR, 0.787; P < .001). Greater baseline forward flexion was negatively associated with achievement of the PASS (OR, 0.986; P = .033) and MCID (OR, 0.976, P = .013). Of the patients, 83.2%, 69.5%, and 47.4% achieved the MCID, PASS, and SCB, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study defines the MCID, SCB, and PASS for the PROMIS UE outcome assessment in patients undergoing primary RTSA, of whom the majority achieved meaningful outcome improvement at 12 months after surgery. These values may be used in assessing the outcomes and extent of functional improvement following RTSA.

Validation of a machine learning-derived clinical metric to quantify outcomes after total shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

We propose a new clinical assessment tool constructed using machine learning, called the Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart (SAS) score to quantify outcomes following total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA).

METHODS

Clinical data from 3667 TSA patients with 8104 postoperative follow-up reports were used to quantify the psychometric properties of validity, responsiveness, and clinical interpretability for the proposed SAS score and each of the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Constant, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES), University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) scores.

RESULTS

Convergent construct validity was demonstrated, with all 6 outcome measures being moderately to highly correlated preoperatively and highly correlated postoperatively when quantifying TSA outcomes. The SAS score was most correlated with the UCLA score and least correlated with the SST. No clinical outcome score exhibited significant floor effects preoperatively or postoperatively or significant ceiling effects preoperatively; however, significant ceiling effects occurred postoperatively for each of the SST (44.3%), UCLA (13.9%), ASES (18.7%), and SPADI (19.3%) measures. Ceiling effects were more pronounced for anatomic than reverse TSA, and generally, men, younger patients, and whites who received TSA were more likely to experience a ceiling effect than TSA patients who were female, older, and of non-white race or ethnicity. The SAS score had the least number of patients with floor and ceiling effects and also exhibited no response bias in any patient characteristic analyzed in this study. Regarding clinical interpretability, patient satisfaction anchor-based thresholds for minimal clinically importance difference and substantial clinical benefit were quantified for all 6 outcome measures; the SAS score thresholds were most similar in magnitude to the Constant score. Regarding responsiveness, all 6 outcome measures detected a large effect, with the UCLA exhibiting the most responsiveness and the SST exhibiting the least. Finally, each of the SAS, ASES, Constant, and SPADI scores had similarly large standardized response mean and effect size responsiveness.

DISCUSSION

The 6-question SAS score is an efficient TSA-specific outcome measure with equivalent or better validity, responsiveness, and clinical interpretability as 5 other historical assessment tools. The SAS score has an appropriate response range without floor or ceiling effects and without bias in any target patient characteristic, unlike the age, gender, or race/ethnicity bias observed in the ceiling scores with the other outcome measures. Because of these substantial benefits, we recommend the use of the new SAS score for quantifying TSA outcomes.

PROMIS Global-10 performs poorly relative to legacy shoulder instruments in patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral arthritis

BACKGROUND

The PROMIS Global-10 is a 10-item questionnaire that assesses general health-related quality of life. There is a paucity of research on the utility of the PROMIS Global-10 in the evaluation of orthopedic conditions. The aim of this study is to compare PROMIS Global-10 and legacy shoulder-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) for shoulder arthritis.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent TSA for shoulder arthritis and completed preoperative and 1-year postoperative surveys. Primary outcome measures were the physical (PROMIS-P) and mental (PROMIS-M) components of PROMIS Global-10. The legacy PROMs included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) score, the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and the Shoulder Activity Scale (SAS). Analyses included postoperative changes for each outcome, correlations between measures and a responsiveness assessment.

RESULTS

A total of 170 patients met inclusion criteria. Average age and body mass index were 67.7 ± 7.8 years and 28.0 ± 4.9, respectively. All legacy PROMs and PROMIS-P were significantly higher at 1-year follow-up compared with the preoperative level (P < .0001), whereas PROMIS-M did not change (P = .06). Preoperatively, both PROMIS components were either poorly correlated with all legacy PROMs (r < .04, P < .05) or not correlated at all (P > .05). Postoperatively, PROMIS-M was poorly correlated with all legacy PROMs (r < .04, P < .01), whereas PROMIS-P had fair correlation with ASES (r = .5, P < .0001) and poor correlation with SANE and SAS (r < .04, P < .01). A floor effect was observed for SANE, and SANE and ASES had a ceiling effect. The effect sizes for SANE and ASES were high (d = 2.01 and 2.39 respectively), whereas the effect size for SAS was moderate (d = 0.65), and the effect sizes for the PROMIS measures were small (d < .5). ASES was the most responsive measure and PROMIS-M was the least responsive.

CONCLUSION

PROMIS Global-10 had limited correlation with legacy PROMs and was less responsive at 1-year follow-up in patients following TSA. The Global-10 appears to have limited utility in the evaluation of patients with shoulder arthritis both preoperatively and after TSA.

Establishing and comparing reference preoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores in patients undergoing shoulder surgery

BACKGROUND

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) has become increasingly popular among orthopedic surgeons treating shoulder pathology. Despite this, there have been few studies that have described and compared preoperative reference scores for specific shoulder surgical procedures. The primary purpose of this study was to establish and compare baseline preoperative PROMIS scores for 3 common types of shoulder surgery: rotator cuff repair (RCR), total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), and labral repair (LR). The secondary goal was to stratify these operative groups by diagnosis and compare preoperative PROMIS scores.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, adult and pediatric patients who underwent surgery for either RCR, TSA, or LR were included. PROMIS-Upper Extremity (UE), PROMIS-Pain Interference (PI), and PROMIS-Depression (D) scores that were collected at each patient's preoperative visit were reviewed. Continuous and categorical variables were compared between operative groups using analysis of variance and χ² or Fisher exact tests, respectively. Multivariable general linear models were used to identify significant independent predictors of PROMIS scores when controlling for age, sex, and body mass index.

RESULTS

A total of 413 patients were included in the study: 272 in the RCR group, 84 in the TSA group, and 57 in the LR group. The average PROMIS-UE score was 39.8 in the LR group vs. 29.9 in the RCR group (P < .001) and 29.6 in the TSA group (P < .001). There was no difference between the mean RCR and TSA PROMIS-UE scores (P = .93). The average PROMIS-PI score was 56.6 in the LR group vs. 62.8 in the RCR group (P < .001) and 63.9 in the TSA group (P < .001). There was no difference between RCR and TSA PROMIS-PI scores (P = .09). The average PROMIS-D score was 43.5 in the LR group vs. 47.7 in the RCR group (P = .004) and 50.3 in the TSA group (P < .001). The TSA group had a higher mean PROMIS-D score than the RCR group (P = .03). For PROMIS-UE scores, age and body mass index were not found to be significant independent predictors (P = .98 and P = .88, respectively). For PROMIS-PI scores, age, body mass index, and sex were not found to be significant independent predictors (P = .31, P = .81, and P = .48, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing shoulder LR had higher preoperative function scores and lower pain interference and depression scores than those undergoing TSA and RCR. These baseline PROMIS scores should be taken into consideration when tracking a patient's outcomes after surgery, as a certain score could mean drastically different functional and pain outcomes depending on the underlying pathology.

Establishing clinically significant outcome thresholds for the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation 2 years following total shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE) is a simple, time-efficient patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) used to assess postoperative shoulder function. Clinically significant outcome values and ability to correlate with longer legacy PROM scores at 2 years following shoulder arthroplasty are unknown.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed using SANE, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES), and Constant scores that were collected at a minimum 2-year follow-up. A total of 153 patients who underwent anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) were included. A distribution-based method was used to determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). An anchor-based method was used to determine substantial clinical benefit (SCB). The following anchor question was collected alongside the PROMs and graded on a 15-point Likert-type scale to establish the SCB: "Since your surgery, has there been any change in the pain in your shoulder?" Linear regression was used to assess correlations between PROMs.

RESULTS

SANE showed moderate correlation with ASES (R² = 0.493) and Constant (R² = 0.586) scores (P < .001). The MCID value was 14.9, and the SCB absolute value was 80.4 (area under the curve = 0.663) for SANE. Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that patients undergoing RTSA were less likely to achieve SCB on all 3 outcome measures (P < .02).

CONCLUSIONS

This study establishes concurrent construct validity for SANE and suggests that it is a valid metric to assess the MCID and SCB at 2 years following anatomic TSA and RTSA. SANE demonstrated moderate correlations with ASES and Constant scores. Patients undergoing RTSA demonstrated a lower propensity to achieve SCB at 2 years postoperatively compared with anatomic TSA.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Scores Are Inconsistently Correlated With Legacy Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Shoulder Pathology: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To evaluate the current literature regarding Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and its correlation to legacy patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) in 5 domains: (1) rotator cuff disease, (2) shoulder instability, (3) shoulder arthroplasty, (4) proximal humerus fractures, and (5) glenohumeral arthritis. The secondary purpose is to evaluate the floor and ceiling effects, the number of questions, and time needed to complete PROMIS and legacy PROMs in shoulder care.

METHODS

A systematic review of the available literature on PROMIS scores in shoulder care was performed. This review was accomplished per PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies that reported data on 1485 patients met inclusion criteria. There was a strong correlation between general function PROMs and the PROMIS PF for patients with rotator cuff disease, shoulder instability, shoulder arthroplasty, and proximal humerus fractures. In addition, there was a strong correlation between PROMIS UE and legacy PROMs in patients with rotator cuff injury and shoulder instability. PROMIS instruments asked fewer questions than legacy PROMs (9.46 vs 12.99, respectively), took less time to complete (88.21 vs 96.53 seconds, respectively), had less floor effects in both PROMIS PF and UE (0.17% and 0.62% vs 2.89%, respectively), and had lower ceiling effects for PROMIS PF but not PROMIS UE assessments (0.17% and 6.37% vs 1.89%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review demonstrated PROMIS instruments have varying correlations with legacy PROMs measures for patients with rotator cuff disease, shoulder instability, shoulder arthroplasty, and glenohumeral arthritis. PROMIS instruments do measure clinical outcomes faster and with fewer questions. Other than PROMIS UE v1.2 ceiling effects, PROMIS instruments have lower rates of floor and ceiling effects.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level II-IV studies.

Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State, and Substantial Clinical Benefit of the PROMIS Upper Extremity Questionnaire After Rotator Cuff Repair

BACKGROUND

The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Upper Extremity (PROMIS UE) questionnaire has been validated as an effective and efficient outcome measure after rotator cuff repair (RCR). However, definitions of clinically significant outcomes used in interpreting this outcome measure have yet to be defined.

PURPOSE

To define clinically significant outcomes of the PROMIS UE questionnaire in patients undergoing arthroscopic RCR.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

We reviewed charts of consecutive patients undergoing RCR in our institution between 2017 and 2018 and included patients who were administered the PROMIS UE before surgery and 12 months after surgery. At 12 months postoperatively, patients were asked domain-specific anchor questions regarding their function and satisfaction after surgery, which were then used to determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) using receiver operating characteristic and area under the curve (AUC) analysis. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was utilized to identify patient factors associated with clinically significant outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 105 patients with RCR and minimum 12-month postoperative PROMIS UE were included in the analysis. The defined clinically significant outcomes were 4.87 for the MCID using a distribution-based method, 7.95 for the SCB (sensitivity, 0.708; specificity, 0.833; AUC, 0.760), and 39.00 for the PASS (sensitivity, 0.789; specificity, 0.720; AUC, 0.815). Among respondents, 79.0%, 62.9%, and 64.8% achieved the MCID, SCB, and PASS score thresholds, respectively. Workers' compensation was negatively associated with achievement of the PASS. Lower preoperative PROMIS UE scores were associated with obtaining the MCID (odds ratio [OR], 0.871; P = .001) and the SCB (OR, 0.900; P = .040), whereas higher preoperative scores were predictive of achieving the PASS (OR, 1.111; P = .020).

CONCLUSION

This study defines the clinically significant outcomes for the PROMIS UE after RCR, of which the majority of patients achieved the MCID, PASS, and SCB at 12 months after surgery. These thresholds should be considered in future study design and interpretation of PROMIS UE in patients with RCR.

Use of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) for Operative Shoulder Outcomes

Background:

Few studies have investigated the relationship between the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and legacy patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurements.

Purpose:

To compare patient-reported outcomes from the PROMIS physical function (PF) and upper extremity (UE) platforms against one another and against legacy PRO measurements to assess the potential strengths and weaknesses of the National Institutes of Health PROMIS initiative and expand on the use of PRO measurements in clinical orthopaedic practice.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

A systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Meta-Analyses) guidelines. All English-language studies published between 2017 and 2019 using PROMIS to evaluate patients for shoulder surgery were analyzed. PROs were compared based on survey administered and the shoulder condition being investigated. Study quality was evaluated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies score.

Results:

We included 9 studies (5 studies were level 2; 3 studies were level 3; 1 study was level 4) encompassing a total of 1130 patients (60.2% male; mean age, 52.6 ± 16.5 years; mean BMI, 29.8 ± 2.8 kg/m²). Of these, 6 studies administered the PROMIS PF, and 6 studies administered the PROMIS UE. The strongest correlation was between PROMIS PF computer adaptive test and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey Global Health (SF-36 GH) (r = 0.75). The highest overall correlation with the PROMIS UE was found with the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Shoulder Score (r = 0.70). The lowest correlations were found between PROMIS PF and the Marx Shoulder Activity Scale (r = 0.08) and the PROMIS UE and the Marx Shoulder Activity Scale (r = 0.18).

Conclusion:

From available data, the PROMIS PF and PROMIS UE were most closely correlated with outcomes measured by the SF-36 GH. The PROMIS UE alone was most correlated with ASES Shoulder Score. Thus, either PROMIS PF or UE may provide a possible alternative to legacy PRO measurements but with a lower overall number of questions and higher generalizability. Future research should compare the time and question burden of the various PROMIS platforms with a more consistent evaluation of standard PRO measurements.

Understanding PROMIS

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are becoming increasingly emphasized in health care. Some medical and orthopedic specialties have 1 or 2 primary PROs that are used across the discipline, whereas hand surgery has multiple PROs. The multitude of PROs gives hand surgeons flexibility because each provides slightly different information, but the number of options can present a daunting task when choosing which to use. The latest generation of PROs leverages computer adaptive testing and includes assessments of physical, mental, and social health. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System was funded by the National Institutes of Health to include a comprehensive set of health instruments that are not disease-specific; it has undergone several forms of validation and has been found to be comparable across medical specialties. This article discusses the details of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, how it compares with other outcomes instruments, and how it can be used in practice.

Editorial Commentary: Making the Leap to the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System: A Paradigm Shift That Will Ultimately Benefit Our Patients

Numerous studies have demonstrated favorable psychometric and administrative characteristics of the National Institutes of Health Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Computer Adaptive Test measures in orthopaedic patient populations. These dynamic assessments require significantly fewer questions than do traditional patient-reported outcome measures, thus requiring less time for survey completion. Their domain-specific nature and standardized scoring make them uniquely suitable for population health assessments. Although some challenges exist in improving adoption of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Computer Adaptive Test forms across orthopaedics, there is growing momentum to increase use of these tools across clinical and research orthopaedic applications.