Linking Oswestry Disability Index to the PROMIS pain interference CAT with equipercentile methods

Expectations about the benefit of exercise, not surgery, are associated with future pain and physical function in patients with non-specific low back pain

Beliefs can affect perceived harms and benefits of a treatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between beliefs about exercise and surgery effectiveness and pain interference and physical function in patients with non-specific low back pain. This was a cohort of 629 pooled clinical trial participants receiving non-pharmacological pain management. Participants either agreed (somewhat or completely) or disagreed that surgery would be beneficial or that exercise would make their symptoms worse. Those that agreed were categorized as having high expectations about the treatment. The influence of high expectations on short-term (6-week) and long-term (6-month) PROMIS Pain Interference scores was modeled with generalized linear (Gaussian) models. In a subset of 510 patients, the same analysis was conducted using PROMIS Physical function scores. The cohort was 28.8% female, mean(SD) age of 33.4(8.3) years and 83.1% active-duty. In all 67.1% had low expectations of exercise and 11.0% had high expecations of surgery. High expectations for surgery were not a significant predictor of pain interference or physical function. High expectations for exercise predicted lower pain interference (ß=-2.146, 95CI -3.366, -0.926; P<0.001) and higher physical function (ß=1.807, 95CI 0.586, 3.027; P=0.004) at 6 weeks and 6 months. High expectations for exercise were uncommon (about 33%) but associated with better outcomes out to six months. One in 10 patients had high expectations for surgery but this was not associated with outcomes. A better understanding of treatment expectations may present opportunities to improve engagement and education strategies for patients with low back pain. PERSPECTIVE: The results of this study show that exercise expectations predict outcomes for those that get exercise, but expectations about treatment in general may not be as helpful as asking specifically about a given treatment. These finding can potentially help clinicians better understand how to improve patient engagement and education strategies.

Developing Linkages Between PROMIS Physical Function CAT and QuickDASH Scores in Hand Surgery: A Crosswalk Study

BACKGROUND

There is no standardization within hand and upper-extremity surgery regarding which patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are collected and reported. This limits the ability to compare or combine cohorts that utilize different PROMs. The aim of this study was to develop a linkage model for the QuickDASH (shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) and PROMIS PF CAT (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function computerized adaptive testing) instruments to allow interconversion between these PROMs in a hand surgery population.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted to identify adults (≥18 years old) who had completed the QuickDASH and PROMIS PF CAT instruments at the same clinical encounter. Patients with shoulder pathology were excluded. The linear relationship between scores was evaluated with use of the Pearson correlation coefficient. Linking was performed with use of several common methods, and an optimal linkage model was recommended on the basis of a higher R 2 , strong intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and lower standard error (SE). The recommended model was further evaluated in subgroups based on age (<60 or ≥60 years), sex, etiology for presentation (traumatic versus atraumatic), and treatment type (operative versus nonoperative).

RESULTS

A total of 15,019 patients (mean age, 49 years; 54% female; 86% White) were included. The mean QuickDASH score (and standard deviation) was 37 ± 22, and the mean PROMIS PF CAT score was 45 ± 10. There was a strong negative linear relationship between the QuickDASH and PROMIS PF CAT (r = -0.73). The circle-arc linkage model demonstrated good accuracy and reliability (R 2 = 0.55; ICC = 0.71), and crosswalk tables were developed from this model. The subgroup analysis demonstrated age-related bias in the linkage model (root expected mean squared difference, 0.12). To address this, a separate crosswalk table was developed, which was dichotomized by age category.

CONCLUSIONS

The QuickDASH and PROMIS PF CAT scores were successfully linked. Utilization of the developed crosswalks-one specific to patients <60 years old and another specific to patients ≥60 years old-will allow for score interconversion in future meta-analyses and multicenter hand surgery studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Evaluation of fluoroscopically guided transforaminal epidural steroid injections for cervical radiculopathy utilizing patient reported outcome measurement information system as an outcome measure

Background

Cervical radiculopathy is a common cause of pain. For patients who fail conservative management, a transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) is an accepted intervention and alternative to decompression surgery.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the therapeutic effect of TFESIs for patients with cervical radiculopathy.

Methods

Adult patients treated at a multidisciplinary, tertiary academic spine center with cervical radicular pain and MRI evidence of corroborative cervical spondylotic foraminal stenosis and who had failed at least 6 weeks of conservative management consisting of medication and physical rehabilitation were included in this study. Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) domains of Physical Function (PF) v1.2/v2.0 and Pain Interference (PI) v1.1 were collected at baseline and at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up visits. Statistical analysis comparing baseline score with follow-up post-procedural PROMIS scores was performed. The percentage of patients who reported improvement exceeding the minimal clinically important difference was calculated for survey responders and for the worst case scenario.

Results

87 patients met inclusion criteria. PROMIS PI at 3-, 6-, and 12-months follow-up statistically improved by 2.2 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 2.1-2.4, p = 0.02), 2.3 (95 % CI 2.1-2.5, p = 0.03), and 2.7 (95 % CI 2.5-3.0, p = 0.03) points, respectively. Follow-up PROMIS PF score did not significantly differ from baseline scores. The percentage of patients that exceeded MCID thresholds of clinical significance was 59 % (95 % CI 47%-70 %) at 3-months, 52 % (95 % CI 41%-63 %) at 6-months, and 60 % (95 % CI 50%-72 %) at 12-months. Worst case scenario analysis demonstrated that 51 % (95 % CI 39%-62 %) of patients exceeded the MCID thresholds at 3-months, 32 % (95 % CI 22%-43 %) at 6-months, and 23 % (95 % CI 13%-33 %) at 12-months.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrated that TFESI leads to a long-term improvement up to a year in pain for patients with cervical radiculopathy.

Crosswalking 4 Pain Impact Measures in a Nationally Representative Sample of Adults With Back Pain

OBJECTIVE

To generate crosswalk equations and tables for 4 pain impact measures: the Impact Stratification Score (ISS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and the Pain, Enjoyment of Life and General Activity Scale (PEG).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey assessing demographics and pain impact. Crosswalks were developed using item-response theory (IRT) cocalibrations and linear regressions between the ISS, ODI, RMDQ, and PEG.

SETTING

Online panel.

PARTICIPANTS

Population-based sample of United States adults aged 18 and older. Eligibility criteria were reporting current back pain, not reporting 2 fake health conditions, and having data for 2 or more pain measures (N=1530; 37% of sample). Crosswalks were developed (n=1030) and cross-validated in a subsample of 500 participants (n=125 randomly sampled from each ISS quartile).

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

ISS, ODI, RMDQ, and the PEG.

RESULTS

Associations of the ISS with the PEG and ODI met the criteria for IRT cocalibration. Other measure pairs were crosswalked using regression. Associations were strongest between the PEG and the ISS (r=0.87, normalized mean absolute error [NMAE]=0.38) and between the ODI and the ISS (r=0.85, NMAE=0.39). Associations were weakest between the PEG and the RMDQ (r=0.69, R2=0.48, NMAE: 0.55-0.58). Regression equations and IRT accounted for 48%-64% of the variance (NMAE: 0.38-0.58) in corresponding pain measures in the cross-validation sample.

CONCLUSIONS

The crosswalks between the ISS and common legacy pain measures created in this study of a nationally representative sample of United States adults with back pain can be used to estimate 1 pain impact measure from another. Further evaluation in clinical samples is recommended.

Does a Concise Patient-reported Outcome Measure Provide a Valid Measure of Physical Function for Cancer Patients After Lower Extremity Surgery?

BACKGROUND

Current functional assessment tools for orthopaedic oncology are long surveys that contribute to patients' survey fatigue and yet lack the ability to discern meaningful differences in a patient population that is often mobile but unable to perform strenuous activities. We sought to determine whether a shorter, novel tool based on existing, validated surveys could better capture differences in a sample of orthopaedic oncology patients.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Can a concise fixed-item functional tool derived from the 50 items in the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score for the lower extremity (TESS LE) and the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) demonstrate similar responsiveness in terms of sensitivity and specificity? (2) What is the precision and accuracy of the concise tool compared with the TESS LE and LEFS?

METHODS

Functional outcome data were collected and maintained in a longitudinally maintained database at a single institution. Patients were included in the study if (1) they had undergone a tumor excision or a nononcologic orthopaedic procedure (for example, arthroplasty for osteoarthritis) for a bone or soft tissue tumor affecting lower extremity function, and (2) they had completed the LEFS, TESS LE, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global health tool on at least two clinic visits. Between September 2014 and April 2022, we treated 14,234 patients for primary bone or soft tissue sarcoma, metastatic disease to bone, or orthopaedic sequelae of chronic cancer care. Approximately 6% (854 of 14,234) were excluded due to the need of a language translator. Approximately 2% (278 of 13,380) refused or were unable to participate. Seventy-two percent (9433 of 13,102) of the patients had an operation on a lower extremity. Of these, 4% (339 of 9433) of the patients completed the TESS LE, LEFS, and Item 3 of the PROMIS global health tool on ≥ 2 clinic visits. Of the patients in the current study, 49% (167 of 339) were women, and 27% (93 of 339) had metastatic carcinoma. Twelve percent (41 of 339) of the patients died before the end of the study period. Spearman rank-order correlation, principal component analysis (PCA), and item response theory (IRT) modeling identified 14 highly discriminating items from the TESS LE and LEFS. Multiple linear stepwise regression (MLSR) was performed with the dependent variable being the summary score of the 14 items derived from the TESS LE and LEFS and standardized to a percentage of 100. The beta coefficient from the MLSR was used to derive a weight for each of the 14 items. Evaluation of the model with 10 to 17 variables was performed to ensure that the model with the 14 items met the most criteria for fit with the PCA, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and the IRT modeling criteria. The responsiveness (sensitivity and specificity) of the change scores in the shortened 14-item survey, the 30-item TESS LE, and the 20-item LEFS as compared with the dichotomized changes in Item 3 of the PROMIS global health tool was evaluated using ROCs. The concordance (accuracy and precision) of the 14 items derived from the LEFS and TESS LE was evaluated.

RESULTS

The responsiveness (sensitivity and specificity) of the shortened 14-item survey, the TESS LE, and the LEFS to the criterion target of the PROMIS global health tool (Item 3) was similar, with areas under the curve (AUCs) ranging from 0.62 to 0.65 for the ROC curves. The responsiveness of the 14-item survey to the TESS LE showed sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 90%, with an AUC of 0.98 (p < 0.001). The responsiveness of the 14 items to the LEFS showed sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 86%, with an AUC of 0.96. The validity of the 14 items to the TESS LE was measured by concordance, with a precision of 0.98 and an accuracy of 0.97. Concordance of the 14 items to the LEFS showed a precision of 0.98 and accuracy of 0.83.

CONCLUSION

The concise 14 items derived from patient-reported responses in the TESS LE and LEFS outcome measures showed similar responsiveness (sensitivity and specificity) as the original TESS LE and LEFS for cancer patients after lower extremity orthopaedic surgery performed for oncologic and nononcologic indications. The concise 14 items have a similar ability to the TESS LE and LEFS to tell the clinician or patient how they are functioning compared with other patients. These 14 items are shorter than the combined 50 items of the TESS LE and LEFS while retaining the capacity to describe a broad range of lower extremity function for orthopaedic oncology patients. We have named the 14-item survey the Lower Extremity Oncology Functional Assessment Tool (LEO).Level of Evidence Level II, diagnostic study.

Real-world long-term outcomes of peripheral nerve stimulation: a prospective observational study

AIM

We aimed to evaluate real-world outcomes of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) used to treat chronic neuropathic pain (CNP) at a tertiary pain management center.

METHODS

Thirty adults who underwent PNS for CNP between June 2015 and September 2021 completed pain and psychosocial assessments in the 6 months before, and 2-3 years after PNS treatment. Pain intensity was measured using the NIH Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Intensity Short From (3A). Psychosocial outcomes including depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbance were also measured.

RESULTS

Prior to receiving PNS, long-term responders reported significantly fewer depressive symptoms compared to non-responders (PROMIS depression t-score 50.3 [10.7] vs 57.9 [8.9]; p-value = 0.05). Eleven participants (36.7%) reported long-term treatment response. There was a significantly greater improvement in pain intensity among responders compared to non-responders who reported increased pain (PROMIS Pain Intensity score -9.0 [-4.2] vs. +3.1[+3.2]; p-value < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients report clinically meaningful long-term pain relief after receiving PNS through both 60-day and permanent implant systems, with significant reductions in pain intensity observed in long-term responders. Long-term responders reported fewer depressive symptoms compared to non-responders prior to receiving therapy, emphasizing the importance of psychological screening and psychological optimization prior to receiving PNS.

Effectiveness of strategies for implementing guideline-concordant care in low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background

International low back pain guidelines recommend providing education/advice to patients, discouraging routine imaging use, and encouraging judicious prescribing of analgesics. However, practice variation occurs and the effectiveness of implementation strategies to promote guideline-concordant care is unclear. This review aims to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness of implementation strategies to promote guideline-concordant care for low back pain.

Methods

Five databases (including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL and PEDro were searched from inception until 22nd August 2024. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated strategies to promote guideline-concordant care (providing education/advice, discouraging routine imaging use, and/or reducing analgesic use) among healthcare professionals or organisations were included. Two reviewers independently conducted screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments. The primary outcome was guideline-concordant care in the medium-term (>3 months but <12 months). The taxonomy recommended by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group was used to categorise implementation strategies. Meta-analysis with a random-effects model was conducted where possible. This systematic review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42023452969).

Findings

Twenty-seven RCTs with 32 reports were included. All strategies targeted healthcare professionals (7796 health professionals overseeing 34,890 patients with low back pain), and none targeted organisations. The most commonly used implementation strategies were educational materials (15/27) and educational meetings (14/27), although most studies (24/27) used more than one strategy ('multifaceted strategies'). In the medium-term, compared to no implementation, implementation strategies probably reduced the use of routine imaging (number of studies [N] = 7, odds ratio [OR] = 1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.58, I 2  = 50%, moderate certainty evidence), but made no difference in reducing analgesic use (N = 4, OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.96-1.14, I 2  = 0%, high certainty evidence). Further, implementation strategies may make no difference to improve the rate of providing education/advice (N = 3, OR = 1.83, 95% CI: 0.87-3.87, I 2  = 95%, low certainty evidence), but this finding should be interpreted with caution because the sensitivity analysis showed a weak positive finding indicating unstable results that are likely to change with future research (N = 2, OR = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.04-1.35, I 2  = 0%, moderate certainty evidence). No difference was found when comparing one implementation strategy to another in the medium-term.

Interpretation

Implementing guideline recommendations delivered mixed effects in promoting guideline-concordant care for low back pain management.

Funding

There was no funding source for this review.

Towards Standardized Assessment of Outcomes in Back Pain-Validation of Linking Studies Between Disease-Specific and Generic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

Background: Comparing outcomes across different health measurement tools is essential where various patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used. In spinal surgery, where recent studies show that over 30 different PROMs are applied, this need becomes even more pressing. Although several statistical transformations between the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the PROMIS Profile 29 have been proposed, validation studies on conversion equations and cross-walk tables remain limited. In this study, we examined the agreement between observed ODI scores and those predicted from the PROMIS Profile 29 in a large sample of patients with low back pain, collected from routine clinical care. Methods: We compared the performance of regression and linking models at both the individual and group levels. Using Bland-Altman plots, we assessed the mean difference, 95% limits of agreement, root mean squared error (RMSE), and standardized mean differences (Cohen's d) between predicted and observed ODI scores. Results: While group-level agreement was satisfactory, with negligible effect sizes, individual prediction accuracy was relatively poor. Additionally, regression models showed inconsistent performance across the ODI score range, though incorporating more domains marginally improved predictions. Conclusions: The equipercentile linking approach demonstrated stable agreement across all ODI scores, making it the preferred method. Future regression models should account for nonlinear relationships between PROMs to enhance prediction accuracy.

Evaluation of Fluoroscopically Guided Transforaminal Selective Nerve Root Sleeve Injections for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With Radiculopathy Utilizing Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System as an Outcome Measure

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the therapeutic effect of transforaminal selective nerve root sleeve injections (TFSNRIs) in a specific subset of patients with clinical symptoms and presentation consistent with spinal stenosis.

DESIGN

Retrospective review.

SETTING

Tertiary academic spine center.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 176 patients with radicular leg pain with or without low back pain as well as ≥3 clinical features of spinal stenosis and corroborative radiographic features of spinal stenosis on lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging without confounding spinal pathology (N=176).

INTERVENTIONS

Fluoroscopically guided transforaminal selective nerve root sleeve injections.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) v1.2/v2.0, Pain Interference (PI) v1.1, and PROMIS (D) v1.0 were collected at baseline and post-procedure short term (<3-months) and long-term (6-12 month) follow-up. Statistical analysis comparing baseline and postprocedural PROMIS scores was performed. Differences were compared with previously established minimal clinically important differences in the spine population.

RESULTS

For patients with spinal stenosis treated with TFSNRI, no statistically significant improvement was observed short- and long-term follow-up in PROMIS PF (P=.97, .77) and PROMIS Depression (P=.86, .85) scores. At short-term follow-up, PROMIS PI scores did significantly improve (P=.01) but the average difference of pre- and post-procedure scores did not reach clinical significance. No significant difference in PROMIS PI was noted at long-term follow-up (.75).

CONCLUSIONS

Although a statistically significant difference was observed for improvement in pain, in this retrospective study, TFSNRI did not provide clinically significant improvement in patients' function, pain, or depression for lumbar spinal stenosis at short- and long-term follow-up.

Linking QuickDASH and PROMIS Upper-Extremity Computer-Adaptive Test Scores in Hand Surgery: A Crosswalk Study

PURPOSE

Assessment of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for hand and upper-extremity surgery patients using measures such as the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (qDASH), as well as general measures including the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity Physical Function domain via a Computer-Adaptive Test (PROMIS UE CAT), has become commonplace. The aim of this study was to link, for crosswalking, the qDASH measure to both versions of the PROMIS UE CAT (v1.2 and v2.0).

METHODS

We included 18,944 hand and upper-extremity patients who completed both versions of the PROMIS UE CAT and the qDASH at the same clinical encounter. Shoulder pathology was excluded. Score linkage was performed using the R package equate, and multiple equating models (linear regression, identity, mean, linear, equipercentile, and circle-arc models) were used to establish crosswalk tables.

RESULTS

Mean qDASH and PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 scores were 38.2 (SD = 23.1) and 36.6 (SD = 9.8), respectively. Mean qDASH and PROMIS UE CAT v2.0 scores were 37.3 (SD = 21.8) and 38.3 (SD = 10.4), respectively. Pearson correlations had very strong linear relationships between the qDASH and the PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 and PROMIS UE CAT v2.0 (r = -0.83 [-0.84, -0.92] and r = -0.80 [-0.81, -0.80], respectively). For the equipercentile equating models, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) had very strong positive relationships to linking measures with ICC = 0.85 (0.84, 0.86) for the qDASH-UE CAT v1.2 crosswalk and ICC = 0.83 (0.82, 0.84) for the qDASH-UE CAT v2.0 crosswalk.

CONCLUSIONS

The linkages establish crosswalk tables using equipercentile equating models to convert the PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 and v2.0 scores to the qDASH and vice versa.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study provides crosswalk tables for commonly collected PROMs in hand surgery, increasing the comparability of results between centers using different PROMs to study the same conditions or treatments.

How Are Age, Gender, and Country Differences Associated With PROMIS Physical Function, Upper Extremity, and Pain Interference Scores?

BACKGROUND

The interpretation of patient-reported outcomes requires appropriate comparison data. Currently, no patient-specific reference data exist for the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF), Upper Extremity (UE), and Pain Interference (PI) scales for individuals 50 years and older.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Can all PROMIS PF, UE, and PI items be used for valid cross-country comparisons in these domains among the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany? (2) How are age, gender, and country related to PROMIS PF, PROMIS UE, and PROMIS PI scores? (3) What is the relationship of age, gender, and country across individuals with PROMIS PF, PROMIS UE, and PROMIS PI scores ranging from very low to very high?

METHODS

We conducted telephone interviews to collect custom PROMIS PF (22 items), UE (eight items), and PI (eight items) short forms, as well as sociodemographic data (age, gender, work status, and education level), with participants randomly selected from the general population older than 50 years in the United States (n = 900), United Kingdom (n = 905), and Germany (n = 921). We focused on these individuals because of their higher prevalence of surgeries and lower physical functioning. Although response rates varied across countries (14% for the United Kingdom, 22% for Germany, and 12% for the United States), we used existing normative data to ensure demographic alignment with the overall populations of these countries. This helped mitigate potential nonresponder bias and enhance the representativeness and validity of our findings. We investigated differential item functioning to determine whether all items can be used for valid crosscultural comparisons. To answer our second research question, we compared age groups, gender, and countries using median regressions. Using imputation of plausible values and quantile regression, we modeled age-, gender-, and country-specific distributions of PROMIS scores to obtain patient-specific reference values and answer our third research question.

RESULTS

All items from the PROMIS PF, UE, and PI measures were valid for across-country comparisons. We found clinically meaningful associations of age, gender, and country with PROMIS PF, UE, and PI scores. With age, PROMIS PF scores decreased (age ß Median = -0.35 [95% CI -0.40 to -0.31]), and PROMIS UE scores followed a similar trend (age ß Median = -0.38 [95% CI -0.45 to -0.32]). This means that a 10-year increase in age corresponded to a decline in approximately 3.5 points for the PROMIS PF score-a value that is approximately the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Concurrently, we observed a modest increase in PROMIS PI scores with age, reaching half the MCID after 20 years. Women in all countries scored higher than men on the PROMIS PI and 1 MCID lower on the PROMIS PF and UE. Additionally, there were higher T-scores for the United States than for the United Kingdom across all domains. The difference in scores ranged from 1.21 points for the PROMIS PF to a more pronounced 3.83 points for the PROMIS UE. Participants from the United States exhibited up to half an MCID lower T-scores than their German counterparts for the PROMIS PF and PROMIS PI. In individuals with high levels of physical function, with each 10-year increase in age, there could be a decrease of up to 4 points in PROMIS PF scores. Across all levels of upper extremity function, women reported lower PROMIS UE scores than men by an average of 5 points.

CONCLUSION

Our study provides age-, gender-, and country-specific reference values for PROMIS PF, UE, and PI scores, which can be used by clinicians, researchers, and healthcare policymakers to better interpret patient-reported outcomes and provide more personalized care. These findings are particularly relevant for those collecting patient-reported outcomes in their clinical routine and researchers conducting multinational studies. We provide an internet application ( www.common-metrics.org/PROMIS_PF_and_PI_Reference_scores.php ) for user-friendly accessibility in order to perform age, gender, and country conversions of PROMIS scores. Population reference values can also serve as comparators to data collected with other PROMIS short forms or computerized adaptive tests.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, diagnostic study.

How Well Do Seven Self-Report Measures Represent Underlying Back Pain Impact?

BACKGROUND

The extent to which different measures of back pain impact represent an underlying common factor has implications for decisions about which one to use in studies of pain management and estimating one score from others.

AIMS

To determine if different self-report back pain impact measures represent an underlying pain latent variable and estimate associations with it.

METHOD

Seven pain impact measures completed by Amazon Mechanical Turk adults are used to estimate internal consistency reliability and associations: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), short form of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire (OMPQ), Subgroups for Targeted Treatment (STarT) Back Tool, the Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS) disability score, PEG (Pain intensity, interference with Enjoyment of life, interference with General activity), and Impact Stratification Score (ISS).

RESULTS

The sample of 1,874 adults with back pain had an average age of 41 and 52% were female. Sixteen percent were Hispanic, 7% non-Hispanic Black, 5% non-Hispanic Asian, and 71% non-Hispanic White. Internal consistency reliability estimates ranged from 0.710 (OMPQ) to 0.923 (GCPS). Correlations among the measures ranged from 0.609 (RMDQ with OMPQ) to 0.812 (PEG with GCPS). Standardized factor loadings on the pain latent variable ranged from 0.782 (RMDQ) to 0.870 (ISS).

CONCLUSIONS

Scores of each measure can be estimated from the others for use in research.

Identifying Correlation Among Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: A Study of PROMIS-29, ODI, and VAS in Adult Spinal Deformity Patients

BACKGROUND

Adult spinal deformity (ASD) is becoming increasingly common in aging populations. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are self-reported patient surveys administered pre- and postoperatively that provide insight into patient improvement. We aim to compare 3 of the most utilized PROMs: PROMIS-29, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), to investigate whether they provide unique and independent assessments of patient outcomes when assessed longitudinally.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed a database of ASD at UT Southwestern Medical Center between 2016 and 2021. Adult patients (>18 years old) were included if they underwent long-segment (>4 levels) thoracolumbar fusion. PROMIS-29, ODI, and VAS scores were collected preoperatively and at 3-, 6-, 12-, 18-, 24-, 30-, and 36-month follow-ups. Scores were recorded ±1 month of the time points. Pearson correlation coefficients for each PROM were then calculated in a pairwise fashion.

RESULTS

A total of 163 patients were included in our analysis. ODI and VAS showed significant covariance, with VAS Neck and VAS Back having Pearson coefficients of 0.95 and 0.94, respectively. ODI and PROMIS-29 also showed significant covariance, with Physical Function and ODI showing a Pearson coefficient of 0.95. PROMIS-29 and VAS demonstrated less correlation regarding Pain and Physical Function; however, they showed a significantly high Pearson coefficient when comparing VAS Back with PROMIS-29 Sleep and Pain Intensity (r = 0.97 and r = 0.96, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

All 3 PROMs demonstrated significant correlation over 36 months, indicating that simultaneous administration of each during follow-up is redundant. The measure that provided the least unique information was ODI, as both VAS and PROMIS-29 demonstrated similar progression and assessed additional metrics. PROMIS-29 provided the same information as VAS and ODI, with extra facets of patient-reported outcomes, indicating that it may be a more comprehensive measure of longitudinal patient improvement.

Construct validity of the Hungarian Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 Profile Among Patients with Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVE

We aim to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Hungarian version of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS)-29 profile domains among patients with chronic low back pain.

METHODS

We used a convenience, cross-sectional sampling of patients recruited at our neurosurgical institution. The participants completed paper-pencil version of the PROMIS-29 profile in addition to validated legacy questionnaires, including the Oswestry disability index, Research and Development Corporation 36-item short-form survey, 7-item general anxiety disorder scale, 9-item patient health questionnaire. Reliability was evaluated by calculating the internal consistency (Cronbach's α). Test-retest reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient. The structural validity of PROMIS-29 was assessed using a confirmatory factor analysis. Construct validity was assessed by evaluating convergent and discriminant validity using Spearman's rank correlation. To further corroborate the construct validity, we also performed known-group comparisons.

RESULTS

The mean age of the 131 participants was 54 ± 16 years. Of the 131 patients, 62% were women. The internal consistency of each PROMIS domain was high (Cronbach's α >0.89 for all). The test-retest reliability was excellent (intraclass correlation >0.97). The confirmatory factor analysis showed good structural validity (comparative fit index >0.96; standardized root mean square residual <0.026 for all domains). All measured PROMIS scores correlated strongly with the scores obtained using the corresponding primary legacy instrument, indicating excellent convergent validity. The known-group comparisons demonstrated differences as hypothesized.

CONCLUSIONS

We present data supporting the validity and reliability of the Hungarian PROMIS-29 profile short forms for patients with low back pain. This instrument will be useful for research and clinical applications in spine care.

Establishing a common metric for physical function: Linking SARC-F and PROMIS® physical function

INTRODUCTION

Aligned with the increasing need for standardized assessment of physical function in older individuals with cancer and other conditions, several patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been developed and published. The aim of this study is to link the Strength, Assistance with walking, Rising from a chair, Climbing stairs, and Falls questionnaire (SARC-F), and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) Physical Function Short Form 8c (PROMIS PF 8c), and make their scores convertible, in order to expand the use of both instruments in research and inform clinicians and researchers about the interchangeability of critical cut-off scores.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The sample included 300 participants recruited from an online panel. Participants were included if they had received a cancer diagnosis from a clinician and reported receiving anti-cancer treatment. We conducted five linking procedures and selected an optimal one to generate the crosswalk table between the two measures.

RESULTS

The linked T scores of all five methods showed acceptably small mean differences from the observed T scores, and the standard deviation (SD), and root-mean-squared deviation (RMSD) of the differences were generally similar across all methods. After comparing across all statistics, the Stocking-Lord approach was considered as the optimal approach to compute the crosswalk table for converting SARC-F raw scores to PROMIS PF 8c scores. The crosswalk table shows that the SARC-F cut-off value of 4 between healthy versus symptomatic with a corresponding score of 37 fell in the range of moderate physical function limitation from 30 to 39 on the PROMI PF 8c T score metric.

DISCUSSION

The linkage in this study has potential for improving clinical and research activities for people with cancer and perhaps others with a similar range of physical function. It facilitates the interpretability in scores of both measures on a common metric anchored on general population for further group-level analysis. Researchers can use this crosswalk to harmonize data collected from either instrument without requiring all cohorts to administer the same instrument for a prospective data collection or retrospective data analysis purpose or for a cross-study effectiveness study.

A crosswalk of commonly used frailty scales

BACKGROUND

Several validated scales have been developed to measure frailty, yet the direct relationship between these measures and their scores remains unknown. To bridge this gap, we created a crosswalk of the most commonly used frailty scales.

METHODS

We used data from 7070 community-dwelling older adults who participated in National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) Round 5 to construct a crosswalk among frailty scales. We operationalized the Study of Osteoporotic Fracture Index (SOF), FRAIL Scale, Frailty Phenotype, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Vulnerable Elder Survey-13 (VES-13), Tilburg Frailty Indictor (TFI), Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), Edmonton Frailty Scale (EFS), and 40-item Frailty Index (FI). A crosswalk between FI and the frailty scales was created using the equipercentile linking method, a statistical procedure that produces equivalent scoring between scales according to percentile distributions. To demonstrate its validity, we determined the 4-year mortality risk across all scales for low-risk (equivalent to FI <0.20), moderate-risk (FI 0.20 to <0.40), and high-risk (FI ≥0.40) categories.

RESULTS

Using NHATS, the feasibility of calculating frailty scores was at least 90% for all nine scales, with the FI having the highest number of calculable scores. Participants considered frail on FI (cutpoint of 0.25) corresponded to the following scores on each frailty measure: SOF 1.3, FRAIL 1.7, Phenotype 1.7, CFS 5.3, VES-13 5.5, TFI 4.4, GFI 4.8, and EFS 5.8. Conversely, individuals considered frail according to the cutpoint of each frailty measure corresponded to the following FI scores: 0.37 for SOF, 0.40 for FRAIL, 0.42 for Phenotype, 0.21 for CFS, 0.16 for VES-13, 0.28 for TFI, 0.21 for GFI, and 0.37 for EFS. Across frailty scales, the 4-year mortality risks between the same categories were similar in magnitude.

CONCLUSION

Our results provide clinicians and researchers with a useful tool to directly compare and interpret frailty scores across scales.

Measuring PROMIS pain interference in German patients with chronic conditions: calibration, validation, and cross-cultural use of item parameters

PURPOSE

To calibrate the item parameters of the German PROMIS® Pain interference (PROMIS PI) items using an item-response theory (IRT) model and investigate psychometric properties of the item bank.

METHODS

Forty items of the PROMIS PI item bank were collected in a convenience sample of 660 patients, which were recruited during inpatient rheumatological treatment or outpatient psychosomatic medicine visits in Germany. Unidimensionality, monotonicity, and local independence were tested as required for IRT analyses. Unidimensionality was examined using confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Unidimensional and bifactor graded-response IRT models were fitted to the data. Bifactor indices were used to investigate whether multidimensionality would lead to biased scores. To evaluate convergent and discriminant validity, the item bank was correlated with legacy pain instruments. Potential differential item functioning (DIF) was examined for gender, age, and subsample. To investigate whether U.S. item parameters may be used to derive T-scores in German patients, T-scores based on previously published U.S. and newly estimated German item parameters were compared with each other after adjusting for sample specific differences.

RESULTS

All items were sufficiently unidimensional, locally independent, and monotonic. Whereas the fit of the unidimensional IRT model was not acceptable, a bifactor IRT model demonstrated acceptable fit. Explained common variance and Omega hierarchical suggested that using the unidimensional model would not lead to biased scores. One item demonstrated DIF between subsamples. High correlations with legacy pain instruments supported construct validity of the item bank. T-scores based on U.S. and German item parameters were similar suggesting that U.S. parameters could be used in German samples.

CONCLUSION

The German PROMIS PI item bank proved to be a clinically valid and precise instrument for assessing pain interference in patients with chronic conditions.

Longitudinal Predictors of PROMIS Satisfaction With Social Roles and Activities After Shoulder and Knee Sports Orthopaedic Surgery in United States Military Servicemembers: An Observational Study

Background

Satisfaction with social roles and activities is an important outcome for postsurgical rehabilitation and quality of life but not commonly assessed.

Purpose

To evaluate longitudinal patterns of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities measure, including how it relates to other biopsychosocial factors, before and up to 6 months after sports-related orthopaedic surgery.

Study Design

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

Methods

Participants (N = 223) who underwent knee and shoulder sports orthopaedic surgeries between August 2016 and October 2020 completed PROMIS computer-adaptive testing item banks and pain-related measures before surgery and at 6-week, 3-month, and 6-month follow-ups. In a generalized additive mixed model, covariates included time point; peripheral nerve block; the PROMIS Anxiety, Sleep Disturbance, and Pain Behavior measures; and previous 24-hour pain intensity. Patient-reported outcomes were modeled as nonlinear (smoothed) effects.

Results

The linear (estimate, 2.06; 95% CI, 0.77-3.35; P = .002) and quadratic (estimate, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.78-4.08; P < .001) effects of time, as well the nonlinear effects of PROMIS Anxiety (P < .001), PROMIS Sleep Disturbance (P < .001), PROMIS Pain Behavior (P < .001), and pain intensity (P = .02), were significantly associated with PROMIS Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities. The cubic effect of time (P = .06) and peripheral nerve block (P = .28) were not. The proportion of patients with a 0.5-SD improvement in the primary outcome increased from 23% at 6 weeks to 52% by 6 months postsurgery, whereas those reporting worsening PROMIS Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities decreased from 30% at 6 weeks to 13% at 6 months.

Conclusion

The PROMIS Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities measure was found to be related to additional domains of function (eg, mental health, behavioral, pain) associated with postsurgical rehabilitation.

Can Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Measures Estimate High Impact Chronic Pain After Total Joint Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

High impact chronic pain (HICP) is not typically measured following orthopedic surgeries, but has a substantial negative impact on postoperative quality of life. This analysis determined which Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures accurately estimate HICP status following total joint arthroplasty (TJA).

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of a hip and knee TJA cohort. HICP status was determined by two items from the Graded Chronic Pain Scale-Revised. The cohort (n = 2,400) consisted of 47.5% hip (n = 1,142) and 52.5% knee TJA (n = 1,258). For total hip arthroplasty (THA), 53.7% were women (n = 615), 48.6% were 65 years or older (n = 557), 72.5% completed the survey more than 24 months after first surgery (n = 831), and 9.9% had HICP (n = 114). For total knee arthroplasty (TKA), 54.3% were women (n = 687), 59.3% were 65 years or older (n = 750), 72.3% survey completed the survey more than 24 months after first surgery (n = 915), and 11.5% had HICP (n = 145). Included PROMIS measures were pain interference, physical function, anxiety, and sleep disturbance. First, discriminant function analysis determined PROMIS measure contribution to HICP status. Then, area under the curve (AUC) calculated the accuracy of PROMIS measures to estimate HICP status. Influences of sociodemographic and surgical characteristics on AUC were explored in sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Results for TKA and THA were similar so they are presented collectively for the sake of brevity. Mean differences were identified for all PROMIS measures for those with HICP (All P values < 0.01). Pain interference (β = 0.934) and sleep disturbance (β = 0.154) were independently correlated with HICP status in discriminant function analyses. The AUC (95% CIs) for HICP were as follows: pain interference (.952-.973), physical function (.921-.949), sleep (.780-.838), and anxiety (.687-.757). Sensitivity analyses revealed little change in AUC and HICP cutoff scores for PROMIS pain interference and physical function.

CONCLUSION

Two PROMIS measures commonly administered as standard of care for orthopedics, pain interference, and physical function, can be used to estimate HICP status for THA and TKA, thereby refining assessment of TJA outcomes.

Comparison of Psychometric Properties of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System With Traditional Outcome Metrics in Spine Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) was developed to address certain shortcomings of traditional, or legacy patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Because the use of PROMIS across orthopedic populations continues to increase, the purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of the use and validation of PROMIS in spine surgery.

METHODS

PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for relevant articles reporting on the use and validation of PROMIS in spine surgery. The PROMIS formats and individual domains used by investigators were noted. Additionally, psychometric properties reported in validation studies were evaluated.

RESULTS

Both individual studies and systematic reviews have demonstrated the convergent validity of PROMIS domains, reporting moderate-to-strong correlations with legacy measures in a variety of spine patient populations. Across spine surgery patient populations, PROMIS instruments are consistently efficient, demonstrating decreased question burden compared with legacy PROMs. PROMIS domains overall exhibit responsiveness comparable with legacy measures, and the normalization of PROMIS scores to a general population allows for broad coverage, resulting in acceptable floor and ceiling effects. Despite the many strengths of PROMIS, there remain some populations where PROMIS is not suited to be used in isolation.

CONCLUSIONS

PROMIS is widely used as an outcome measure in spine surgery and has been validated in a range of patient populations. Although PROMIS domains cannot fully replace legacy measures in spine patients, they can be used in certain settings to provide an efficient and psychometrically sound PROM.

Pain Interference Influence on Postoperative Clinical Trajectory in Patients Undergoing Lumbar Decompression

OBJECTIVE

Newer Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) may offer benefits over legacy PROs in ease of administration and interpretation. We aim to study the influence of preoperative pain interference (PI) using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference (PROMIS-PI) on postoperative clinical outcomes in patients undergoing lumbar decompression.

METHODS

Patients undergoing lumbar decompression without fusion were separated into 2 cohorts: PROMIS-PI < 64 (lesser PI) and PROMIS-PI ≥ 64 (greater PI). PROs included PROMIS physical function, PROMIS anxiety (PROMIS-A), PROMIS sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD), PROMIS-PI, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back, VAS leg, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and were collected at preoperative and postoperative time points. Demographics, perioperative characteristics, PROs, and Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID) were compared among groups through non-parametric inferential statistics.

RESULTS

One-hundred and seven patients were identified. Independent of preoperative PI, patients reported significant postoperative improvement in PROMIS physical function, PROMIS-A, PROMIS-PI, VAS back, VAS leg, and ODI. The greater PI cohort reported significant postoperative improvement in Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and PROMIS-SD. The lesser PI cohort reported superior preoperative PROs in all domains. Postoperatively, the lesser PI cohort reported superior 6-week PROMIS-A and PROMIS-SD. MCID achievement rates were higher in the greater PI cohort for PROMIS-PI, VAS back, VAS leg, and ODI.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with lower preoperative PI reported superior postoperative anxiety and sleep disturbance. Patients with greater preoperative PI had higher MCID achievement rates in PI, pain, and disability. Patients with greater preoperative PI undergoing lumbar decompression may demonstrate higher rates of clinically tangible improvement.

Can a linking crosswalk table be applied to a different population? An independent validation study for a crosswalk between BSI depression and PROMIS depression scales

A linking procedure establishes a "bridge" between the scores from different patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments that measure similar constructs. After developing a linking relationship however, it is critical to evaluate whether this relationship can be generalized to different groups. Our study aims to validate a published crosswalk for score conversion between the Brief Symptom Inventory Depression subscale and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Depression 8a using an independent sample. Data were from a sample of young men who have sex with men (MSM), which differs in terms of participant age, race, and ethnicity from the sample used to develop the existing crosswalk. The validity of the newly derived crosswalk was evaluated in terms of the correlation, mean difference and standard deviation between the observed and the linked scores. The two crosswalks were further compared to evaluate if the difference was within an acceptable range. More than half of the item parameters obtained from the two samples were found to overlap in their confidence intervals. Differences between each pair of scores in the two crosswalks was within three T-score points, well within the range of each crosswalk score's standard error. This study concludes that an existing crosswalk is replicable on a sample that differs from that used for crosswalk development, but future research should continue to examine the generalizability of the linked parameters and evaluate the reproducibility of this crosswalk to other populations.

Linking Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form and PROMIS Physical Function

INTRODUCTION

Linking scores on patient-reported outcome measures can enable data aggregation for research, clinical care, and quality. We aimed to link scores on the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form (HOOS-PS) and the Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS PF).

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted from 2017 to 2020 evaluating patients with hip osteoarthritis who received routine clinical care from an orthopaedic surgeon. Our sample included 3,382 unique patients with 7,369 pairs of HOOS-PS and PROMIS PF measures completed at a single nonsurgical, preoperative, or postoperative time point. We included one randomly selected time point of scores for each patient in our linking analysis sample. We compared the accuracy of linking using four methods, including equipercentile and item response theory-based approaches.

RESULTS

PROMIS PF and HOOS-PS scores were strongly correlated ( r = -0.827 for raw HOOS-PS scores and r = 0.820 for summary HOOS-PS scores). The assumptions were met for equipercentile and item response theory approaches to linking. We selected the item response theory-based Stocking-Lord approach as the optimal crosswalk and estimated item parameters for the HOOS-PS items on the PROMIS metric. A sensitivity analysis demonstrated overall robustness of the crosswalk estimates in nonsurgical, preoperative, and postoperative patients.

CONCLUSION

These crosswalks can be used to convert scores between HOOS-PS and PROMIS PF metric at the group level, which can be valuable for data aggregation. Conversion of individual patient-level data is not recommended secondary to increased risk of error.

Linking the KOOS-PS to PROMIS Physical Function in Knee Patients Evaluated for Surgery

INTRODUCTION

The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short-form and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function are widely used patient-reported outcome measures in orthopaedic practice and research. It would be helpful for clinicians and researchers to compare scores obtained on one instrument with those collected on another. To achieve this goal, this study conducted a linking analysis and computed a crosswalk table between these two scales.

DATA

The data of this study were collected as part of the clinical care of total knee arthroplasty patients in a large urban and suburban health system. The sample was a mix of responses from nonsurgical (no surgery performed), preoperative (before surgical intervention), and postoperative (after surgical intervention) groups.

METHODS

This study applied five linking methods: the item response theory (IRT)-based linking methods including fixed-parameter calibration, separate-parameter calibration with Stocking-Lord constants, and calibrated projection; and the equipercentile methods with log-linear smoothing and nonsmoothing approaches. Before conducting the linking analysis, we checked the linking assumptions including the similar content of the two scales, the unidimensionality of the combined scales, and the population invariance. The results of the five linking methods were evaluated by mean difference, SD, root-mean-squared deviation, intraclass correlation coefficient of the observed T scores and the crosswalk-derived T scores.

RESULTS

The linking assumptions were all met. T scores generated from the Stocking-Lord crosswalk had the smallest mean difference (= -0.03) and relatively small SD (= 4.91) and root-mean-squared deviation (= 4.91) among the five linking methods. We validated this crosswalk in a larger sample with the nonsurgical, preoperative, and postoperative groups and in an external sample.

DISCUSSION

This study provides clinicians and researchers a practical tool (ie, a crosswalk table) to link scores from two popular physical function measures. Given the diversity of patient-reported outcome measures in use for knee conditions, these crosswalk tables would accelerate clinical and research interpretation of aggregating functional outcomes among the patients evaluated for knee surgery each year.