Do Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Scales Demonstrate Responsiveness as Well as Disease-Specific Scales in Patients Undergoing Knee Arthroscopy?

Country-specific reference values for PROMIS® pain, physical function and participation measures compared to US reference values

INTRODUCTION

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS^®) is commonly used across medical conditions. To facilitate interpretation of scores across countries, we calculated Dutch reference values for PROMIS Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), Pain Interference (PROMIS-PI), Pain Behavior (PROMIS-PB), Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities (PROMIS-APSRA), and Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities (PROMIS-SSRA), as compared to US reference values.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A panel completed full PROMIS-PF (n=1310), PROMIS-PI and PROMIS-PB (n=1052), and PROMIS-APSRA and PROMIS-SSRA (n=1002) item banks and reported their level of health per domain (no, mild, moderate, severe limitations). T-scores were calculated by sample and subgroups (age, gender, self-reported level of domain). Distribution-based and anchor-based thresholds for mild, moderate, and severe scores were determined.

RESULTS

Mean T-scores were close to the US mean of 50 for PROMIS-PF (49.8) and PROMIS-APSRA (50.6), lower for PROMIS-SSRA (47.5) and higher for PROMIS-PI (54.9) and PROMIS-PB (52.0). Distribution-based thresholds for mild, moderate, and severe scores were comparable to US recommended cut-off values (except for PROMIS-PI) but participants reported limitations 'earlier' than suggested thresholds.

CONCLUSION

Dutch reference values were close to US reference values for some PROMIS domains but not all. We recommend country-specific reference values to facilitate worldwide PROMIS use.KEY MESSAGESPROMIS offers universally applicable IRT-based efficient and patient-friendly measures to assess commonly relevant patient-reported outcomes across medical conditions.To support the use of PROMIS in daily clinical practice and research across the world, country-specific general population reference values should be obtained.More research is necessary to obtain reliable and valid cut-off values for what constitutes mild, moderate and severe scores from the patients' perspective.

Duration of rehabilitation therapy to achieve a minimal clinically important difference in mobility, walking endurance and patient-reported physical health: an observational study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the duration of exercise therapy needed to achieve a minimal clinically important difference in mobility, walking endurance and patient-reported global physical health in patients referred for inpatient rehabilitation after knee surgery, hip surgery, or with multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's disease.

DESIGN

Retrospective pre-post intervention observational cohort study.

SUBJECTS

A total of 388 patients (57% women, mean age 65.6 years (standard deviation 9.5)) with a minimum length of stay 10 days were included between 1 January 2020 and 30 April 2021.

METHODS

Outcomes were assessed at the start of, and discharge from, rehabilitation, using the following measures: mobility (Timed Up and Go test), walking endurance (6-minute walk test), patient-reported global physical health (Global Physical Health subscale of the 10-item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System). The duration of exercise therapy needed to achieve a minimal clinically important difference was determined using anchor-based and distribution-based methods.

RESULTS

The duration of therapy needed to achieve a minimal clinically important difference was longer in patients with multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's disease (18-88 h) than in patients after knee or hip surgery (8-25 h). In all patient groups, the duration of exercise therapy needed, determined using the distribution-based method, was shortest for patient-reported global physical health (knee surgery 9.6 h, hip surgery 6.8 h, multiple sclerosis 38.7 h, Parkinson's disease 18.4 h).

CONCLUSION

The duration of active therapies required to achieve a minimal clinically important difference in physical outcomes varies widely (range 8-88 h) among different patient groups and outcomes.

Pearls and pitfalls of PROMIS clinically significant outcomes in orthopaedic surgery

INTRODUCTION

Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) was developed as a uniform and generalizable PROM system using item response theory and computer adaptive testing. We aimed to assess the utilization of PROMIS for clinically significant outcomes (CSOs) measurements and provide insights into its use in orthopaedic research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed PROMIS CSO reports for orthopaedic procedures via PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science from inception to 2022, excluding abstracts and missing measurements. Bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and questionnaire compliance. PROMIS domains, CSO measures, and study populations were described. A meta-analysis compared distribution and anchor-based MCIDs in low-bias (NOS ≥ 7) studies.

RESULTS

Overall, 54 publications from 2016 to 2022 were reviewed. PROMIS CSO studies were observational with increasing publication rates. Evidence-level was II in 10/54, bias low in 51/54, and compliance ≥ 86% in 46/54. Most (28/54) analysed lower extremity procedures. PROMIS domains examined Pain Function (PF) in 44/54, Pain Interference (PI) in 36/54, and Depression (D) in 18/54. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was reported in 51/54 and calculated based on distribution in 39/51 and anchor in 29/51. Patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and minimal detectable change (MDC) were reported in ≤ 10/54. MCIDs were not significantly greater than MDCs. Anchor-based MCIDs were greater than distribution based MCIDs (standardized mean difference = 0.44, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

PROMIS CSOs are increasingly utilized, especially for lower extremity procedures assessing the PF, PI, and D domains using distribution-based MCID. Using more conservative anchor-based MCIDs and reporting MDCs may strengthen results. Researchers should consider unique pearls and pitfalls when assessing PROMIS CSOs.

Comparison of the PROMIS and iHOT-12 in Determining Satisfaction Levels After Hip Arthroscopy for FAIS

Background

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) has not been fully evaluated for outcomes assessment after hip arthroscopy to correct femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).

Purpose/Hypothesis

The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of the PROMIS Physical Function (PF) and Pain Interference (PI) subscales with the 12-Item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) to define patients with 3 unique substantial clinical benefit (SCB) scores-patients who reported ≥80%, ≥90%, and 100% satisfaction at 1 year after hip arthroscopy for FAIS. We hypothesized that the iHOT-12 would be more accurate than the PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-PI subscales in identifying these 3 patient groups.

Study Design

Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.

Methods

We reviewed the records of patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for symptomatic FAIS at 3 centers from January 2019 through June 2021 and had 1-year clinical and radiographic follow-up data. Patients completed the iHOT-12, PROMIS-PF, and PROMIS-PI on initial assessment and at 1 year (±30 days) postoperatively. Postoperative satisfaction was reported on an 11-category scale with anchors defined as "0% satisfied" and "100% satisfied." Receiver operator characteristic analysis was performed to determine the absolute SCB values for the iHOT-12 and PROMIS subscales that would most accurately identify those patients who reported ≥80%, ≥90%, and 100% satisfaction. Area under the curve (AUC) values and 95% CIs for the 3 instruments were compared.

Results

Included were 163 patients (111 [68%] women and 52 [32%] men), with a mean age of 26.1 years. Corresponding absolute SCB scores for patients who reported ≥80%, ≥90%, and 100% satisfaction were as follows: iHOT-12, 68.4, 72.1, 74.7; PROMIS-PF, 45, 47.7, 49.9; and PROMIS-PI, 55.9, 52.4, 51.9. The AUC ranged between 0.67 and 0.82, with overlapping 95% CIs indicating a minimal difference in accuracy between the 3 instruments. Sensitivity and specificity values ranged between 0.61 and 0.82.

Conclusion

The PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-PI subscales were as accurate as the iHOT-12 in defining absolute SCB scores for patients reporting ≥80%, ≥90%, and 100% satisfaction at 1-year follow-up after hip arthroscopy for FAIS.

Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Persian version of selected PROMIS measures for use in lumbar canal stenosis patients

BACKGROUND

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) developed a new measurement system called the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) which can be used for multiple health conditions. The 29-item short form (PROMIS-29) with seven domains was more often used by clinical researchers to measure the physical function, mood and sleeping status of patients with low back pain (LBP). Translation of the PROMIS into multiple languages and adaptation of its application in different cultural diversities can help to further standardize clinical research studies and make them comparable to each other. This study aimed to cross-culturally adapt the PROMIS-29 into Persian (P-PROMIS-29) and evaluate the construct validity and reliability of the translated questionnaire among patients with lumbar canal stenosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The translation was conducted by using the multilingual translation methodology guideline. Construct validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability at a two-week interval for the P-PROMIS-29 were calculated. Construct validity was assessed by calculating correlations between the P-PROMIS-29 with Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Roland-Morris results.

RESULTS

The study sample included 70 participants with lumbar canal stenosis. Internal consistencies were moderate to good with Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.2 to 0.94. The test-retest reliability evaluation was excellent with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranging from 0.885 to 0.986. Construct validity of different domains of P-PROMIS-29 were moderate to good, with Pearson's correlation coefficient results ranging from 0.223 to 0.749.

CONCLUSION

Our results showed that P-PROMIS-29 is a valid and reliable measurement tool for evaluation of patients with lumbar canal stenosis.

Editorial Commentary: Legacy Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Remain Important Today Despite Responder Burden, but With Further Refinement, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Could Replace Legacy Instruments in the Future

Measuring patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is a key tenet in the drive toward value-based care. A more detailed understanding of outcomes has traditionally been obtained with increasingly frequent and more in-depth patient questionnaires. Legacy PROs require patients to complete a predetermined set of questions. Administering lengthy surveys repeatedly can generate respondent fatigue that compromises quality of the survey responses and overall compliance. In addition, these legacy scales have notable ceiling and floor effects, which limit their capacity to describe the condition of patients who are functioning at relatively high or low levels. Modern computer adaptive instruments, such as PROMIS, strive to minimize responder burden and mitigate floor and ceiling effects associated with many legacy instruments. However, although these new newer instruments correlate (moderately) with legacy scores, PROMIS also shows floor and ceiling effects, and PROMIS responsiveness is currently understudied. Today, we collect both PROMIS and legacy scores for tracking patient outcomes and for research purposes. We predict that with further refinement, PROMIS will replace legacy patient-reported outcome measures.

Responsiveness and Minimal Important Change of the PROMIS Pain Interference Item Bank in Patients Presented in Musculoskeletal Practice

We evaluated the responsiveness of the Patient Reported Outcome Information System Pain Interference item bank in patients with musculoskeletal pain by testing predefined hypotheses about the relationship between the change scores on the item bank, change scores on legacy instruments and Global Ratings of Change (GRoC), and we estimated Minimal Important Change (MIC). Patients answered the full Dutch-Flemish V1.1 item bank. From the responses we derived scores for the standard 8-item short form (SF8a) and a CAT-score was simulated. Correlations between the change scores on the item bank, GRoC and legacy instruments were calculated, together with Effect Sizes, Standardized Response Means, and Area Under the Curve. GRoC were used as an anchor for estimating the MIC with (adjusted) predictive modeling. Of 1,677 patients answering baseline questionnaires 960 completed follow-up questionnaires at 3 months. The item bank correlated moderately high with the GRoC (Spearman's rho 0.63) and with the legacy instruments (Pearson's R ranging from .45 to .68). It showed a high ES (.97) and Standardized Response Means (.71), and could distinguish well between improved and not improved patients based on the GRoC (Area Under the Curve .77). Comparable results were found for the derived SF8a and CAT-scores. The MIC was estimated to be 3.2 (CI 2.6-3.7) T-score points. PERSPECTIVE: Our study supports the responsiveness of the PROMIS-PI item bank in patients with musculoskeletal complaints. Almost all predefined hypotheses were met (94%). The PROMIS-PI item bank correlated well with several legacy instruments which supports generic use of the item bank. MIC for PROMIS-PI was estimated to be 3.2 T-score points.

Approximately One Half of Patients Greater Than 40 Years Old Achieve Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State 6 Months After Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy

Purpose

The purposes of this study were to 1) calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in a population of patients undergoing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) based on Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Scores (KOOS), 2) quantify the difference between the proportion of patients reaching MCID based on KOOS versus the proportion who considered surgery to be successful based on a "yes" answer to a patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) question, and 3) calculate the percentage of patients experiencing treatment failure (TF).

Methods

A large, single-institution clinical database was queried for patients undergoing isolated APM (>40 years of age). Data were collected at regular time intervals, including KOOS and PASS outcome measures. Calculation of MCID using a distribution-based model was performed using preoperative KOOS scores as baseline. Comparison of the proportion of patients surpassing MCID was made to the proportion of patients answering "yes" to a tiered PASS question at 6 months after APM. Proportion of patients experiencing TF was calculated using patients who responded "no" to a PASS question and "yes" to a TF question.

Results

Three-hundred and fourteen of 969 patients met inclusion criteria. At 6 months following APM, the percentage of patients meeting or exceeding the MCID for each respective KOOS subscore ranged from 64 to 72% compared to 48% who achieved a PASS (P < .0001 for each subscore). Fourteen percent of patients experienced TF.

Conclusions

Six months after APM, approximately one half of the patients achieved a PASS and 15% experienced TF. The difference between achieving MCID based on each of the KOOS subscores and achieving success via PASS ranged from 16% to 24%. Thirty-eight percent of patients undergoing APM did not fit neatly into overt success or failure categorization.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Preoperative Opioid Use Is Associated With Inferior Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Scores Following Rotator Cuff Repair

PURPOSE

To determine the influence of preoperative opioid use on Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores pre- and postoperatively in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR).

METHODS

A retrospective review of all RCR patients aged >18 years old was performed. PROMIS pain interference ("PROMIS PI"), upper extremity function ("PROMIS UE"), and depression ("PROMIS D") scores, were reviewed. These measures were collected at preoperative, 6-month, and 1-year postoperative time points. A prescription drug-monitoring program was queried to track opioid prescriptions. Patients were categorized as chronic users, acute users, and nonusers based on prescriptions filled. Comparison of means were carried out using analysis of variance and least squares means. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

In total, 184 patients who underwent RCR were included. Preoperatively, nonusers (n = 92) had superior PROMIS UE (30.6 vs 28.9 vs 26.1; P < .05) and PI scores (61.5 vs 64.9 vs 65.3; P < .001) compared with acute users (n = 65) and chronic users (n = 27), respectively. At 6 months postoperatively; nonusers demonstrated significantly greater PROMIS UE (41.7 vs 35.6 vs. 33.5; P < .001), lower PROMIS D (41.6 vs 45.8 vs 51.1; P < .001), and lower PROMIS PI scores (50.7 vs 56.3 vs 58.1; P < .01) when compared with acute and chronic users, respectively. Nonusers had lower PROMIS PI (47.9 vs 54.3 vs 57.4; P < .0001) and PROMIS D (41.6 vs 48.3 vs 49.2; P = .0002) scores compared with acute and chronic users at 1-year postoperatively. Nonusers experienced a significantly greater magnitude of improvement in PROMIS D 6 months postoperatively compared with chronic opioid users (-5.9 vs 0.0; P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing RCR demonstrated superior PROMIS scores pre- and postoperatively if they did not use opioids within 3 months before surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective comparative trial.

The Current Utilization of Patient-reported Outcome Measurement Information System in Shoulder, Elbow, and Sports Medicine

Clinical research using patient-reported outcome measures has been critical within the field of shoulder, elbow, and sports medicine in helping clinicians deliver evidence-based and value-based medicine. Recently, however, clinicians have advocated for improving the process of obtaining clinically meaningful information from patients while decreasing survey fatigue and increasing compliance. To that end, the National Institutes of Health created the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Information System (PROMIS) in which a number of institutions and research investigations have adopted for reporting outcomes. A special focus has also been placed on PROMIS Computer Adaptive Testing forms, which tailor questioning through item response theory. The purpose of this study was to provide insight into the utilization, advantages, and disadvantages of PROMIS within the field of shoulder, elbow, and sports medicine and provide a comparison with legacy patient-reported outcome measure measurements.

Are Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System scales responsive in patients attending physical therapy with foot and ankle diagnoses?

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been used to provide insight into the patient experience while uncovering an opportunity to improve patient care. Current studies document responsiveness of outcomes using the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) for a variety of orthopedic problems but are not specific to a physical therapy interval of care.

PURPOSE

The main purpose of this study was to examine responsiveness of the PROMIS Physical Function (PF) and Pain Interference (PI) scales across an interval of care for physical therapy in patients with foot and ankle conditions.

METHODS

Adult records (299 records, averaged 45.1 ± 15.4 years; 61% female) were assessed. Comparisons between pre- and post-physical therapy intervals of care were evaluated using a repeated-measures ANOVA, and the effect size was reported using Cohen's d.

RESULTS

PROMIS PF scores significantly improved from 38.5 ± 8.8 to 45.2 ± 9.1 (6.6; p < .001; Cohen's d = 1.0). PROMIS PI scores significantly improved from 56.8 ± 8.8 to 53.0 ± 9.8 (-3.8; p < .001; Cohen's d = 0.52).

CONCLUSIONS

The person-centered PROMIS PF and PI outcome measures were responsive to change following an interval of care in physical therapy for a large sample of orthopedic patients with foot and ankle diagnoses. The magnitude of change was dependent on starting score and diagnosis.

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.

Preoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global Health Scores Predict Patients Achieving the Minimal Clinically Important Difference in the Early Postoperative Time Period After Total Knee Arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

The patient-specific factors influencing postoperative improvement after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are important considerations for the surgeon and patient. The primary purpose of this study was to determine which patient demographic factors influence the postoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global Health (GH) scores. In addition, we aimed to compare the prognostic utility of preoperative PROMIS-GH scores and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS-JR) in predicting postoperative improvement.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study of a consecutive series of patients who underwent primary, unilateral TKA analyzed prospectively collected KOOS-JR and PROMIS-GH surveys. PROMIS-GH includes physical health (PH) and mental health scores. Patient demographic and presurgical characteristics were evaluated for prognostic capability in predicting postoperative improvement in the PROMIS scores and achievement of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to understand the prognostic thresholds of the preoperative PROMIS score and KOOS-JR for predicting MCID achievement.

RESULTS

A total of 872 patients were included. Although unadjusted analyses showed associations between patient demographic factors and PROMIS-PH scores, multivariable regression analysis for predictors of MCID achievement demonstrated that PROMIS-PH was the only significant preoperative variable. Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed that the area under the curve of PROMIS-PH (0.70; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.74) was less than that of the KOOS-JR (0.77; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.81; P = 0.032). Sensitivity and specificity for achieving the MCID were maximized for preoperative PROMIS-PH scores of ≤ 38 (59% and 70%) and for preoperative KOOS-JR ≤ 51 (71% and 69%).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative KOOS-JR and PROMIS-PH scores predict clinically meaningful improvement after TKA. The KOOS-JR has greater prognostic utility in the early postoperative period.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, Prognostic Study.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Test Is Less Responsive Than Legacy Hip-Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Patients Undergoing Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

Purpose

To evaluate and compare the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) computerized adaptive test and PROMIS Pain Interference (PI) instruments versus legacy patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome at 1-year follow-up.

Methods

Patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome without concomitant procedures performed by a single surgeon between August 2018 and January 2019 were identified. The PROMIS PF score, PROMIS PI score, Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living Subscale (HOS-ADL), Hip Outcome Score–Sports Subscale (HOS-SS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), International Hip Outcome Tool 12 (iHOT-12), and visual analog scale (VAS) pain score were obtained preoperatively and at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. Bivariate correlation analyses between PROMIS and legacy PROMs were performed. The floor and ceiling effects, responsiveness, and relative efficiency (RE) of each PROM were calculated.

Results

This study included 124 patients with an average age of 32.7 ± 12.3 years. The PROMIS PF score showed very good correlations with the HOS-ADL (r = 0.73, P < .001) and mHHS (r = 0.70, P < .001) and good correlations with the HOS-SS (r = 0.62, P < .001), iHOT-12 score (r = 0.62, P < .001), and VAS pain score (r = –0.64, P < .001). The PROMIS PI score showed very good inverse correlations with the HOS-ADL (r = –0.72, P < .001) and mHHS (r = –0.79, P < .001) and good correlations with the HOS-SS (r = –0.64, P < .001), iHOT-12 score (r = –0.65, P < .001), and VAS pain score (r = 0.65, P < .001). No floor effect was observed for any measure. Ceiling effects were not observed in the PROMIS PROMs but were detected for the HOS-ADL (16.1%) and mHHS (19.3%). The effect size was large for all outcomes: iHOT-12 score, d = 1.77; HOS-ADL, d = 1.37; HOS-SS, d = 1.45; PROMIS PI score, d = 1.05; and PROMIS PF score, d = 1.01. The iHOT-12 score was more responsive than the PROMIS PI score (RE = 1.69), PROMIS PF score (RE = 1.75), HOS-ADL (RE = 1.29), and HOS-SS (RE = 1.22).

Conclusions

At 1-year follow-up, PROMIS PROMs displayed very good correlations with legacy PROMs. However, PROMIS PROMs had lower effect sizes and were not as responsive as legacy PROMs.

Level of Evidence

Level II, development of diagnostic criteria on the basis of consecutive patients.

A High-Sensitivity International Knee Documentation Committee Survey Index From the PROMIS System: The Next-Generation Patient-Reported Outcome for a Knee Injury Population

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measure progression and quality of care. While legacy PROs such as the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) survey are well-validated, a lengthy PRO creates a time burden on patients, decreasing adherence. In recent years, PROs such as the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function and Pain Interference surveys were developed as computer adaptive tests, reducing time to completion. Previous studies have examined correlation between legacy PROs and PROMIS; however, no studies have developed effective prediction models utilizing PROMIS to create an IKDC index. While the IKDC is the standard knee PRO, computer adaptive PROs offer numerous practical advantages.

PURPOSE

To develop a nonlinear predictive model utilizing PROMIS Physical Function and Pain Interference to estimate IKDC survey scores and examine algorithm sensitivity and validity.

STUDY DESIGN

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

METHODS

The MOTION (Military Orthopaedics Tracking Injuries and Outcomes Network) database is a prospectively collected repository of PROs and intraoperative variables. Patients undergoing knee surgery completed the IKDC and PROMIS surveys at varying time points. Nonlinear multivariable predictive models using Gaussian and beta distributions were created to establish an IKDC index score, which was then validated using leave-one-out techniques and minimal clinically important difference analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1011 patients completed the IKDC and PROMIS Physical Function and Pain Interference, providing 1618 complete observations. The algorithms for the Gaussian and beta distribution were validated to predict the IKDC (Pearson = 0.84-0.86; R² = 0.71-0.74; root mean square error = 9.3-10.0).

CONCLUSION

The publicly available predictive models can approximate the IKDC score. The results can be used to compare PROMIS Physical Function and Pain Interference against historical IKDC scores by creating an IKDC index score. Serial use of the IKDC index allows for a lower minimal clinically important difference than the conventional IKDC. PROMIS can be substituted to reduce patient burden, increase completion rates, and produce orthopaedic-specific survey analogs.

Predictors of postoperative pain using PROMIS pain interference two-years following knee surgery

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to identify preoperative factors associated with worse PROMIS Pain Interference (PI) two years following knee surgery.

Methods

Participants completed surveys preoperatively and two years postoperatively. Data collected included demographics, medical history, and multiple patient-reported outcomes measures, including PROMIS PI.

Results

After controlling for confounders, lower income, smoking, worse PROMIS Anxiety, worse Numeric Pain Score body pain, and worse Marx Activity Rating Scale were independent predictors for worse PROMIS PI two years after surgery.

Conclusion

Worse PROMIS PI two years after elective knee surgery is associated with multiple socio-demographic patient identifiers.

The PROMISⓇ-Plus-Osteoarthritis of the Knee (OAK) profile measure integrates generic and condition-specific content to enhance relevance and efficiency

OBJECTIVE

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-Plus-Osteoarthritis of the Knee (OAK) profile integrates universal PROMIS items with knee-specific items across 13 domains. We evaluated the psychometric properties of a subset of six domains associated with quality of life in people with OAK.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

In a cross-sectional study of OAK patients (n=600), we estimated reliability using Pearson and Spearman correlations with Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscores and known-groups validity with PROMIS Global Health. Measure responsiveness was tested via paired t-tests in a longitudinal study (n=238), pre/post total knee replacement.

RESULTS

Across the six domains, internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha) was 0.77-0.95 and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients) was ≥0.90. Correlations with Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscores and PROMIS Global supported convergent and divergent validity. Known-groups validity testing revealed better scores in all domains for high vs. low global status groups, and knee-specific items added value in physical function and pain. All domains reflected (p<0.001) better health status scores at follow up.

CONCLUSION

The six PROMIS-Plus-OAK profile domains demonstrated good psychometric characteristics. The measure integrates universal and knee-specific content to provide enhanced relevance, measurement precision and efficient administration for patient care and clinical research.

Minimal important change (MIC): a conceptual clarification and systematic review of MIC estimates of PROMIS measures

We define the minimal important change (MIC) as a threshold for a minimal within-person change over time above which patients perceive themselves importantly changed. There is a lot of confusion about the concept of MIC, particularly about the concepts of minimal important change and minimal detectable change, which questions the validity of published MIC values. The aims of this study were: (1) to clarify the concept of MIC and how to use it; (2) to provide practical guidance for estimating methodologically sound MIC values; and (3) to improve the applicability of PROMIS by summarizing the available evidence on plausible PROMIS MIC values. We discuss the concept of MIC and how to use it and provide practical guidance for estimating MIC values. In addition, we performed a systematic review in PubMed on MIC values of any PROMIS measure from studies using recommended approaches. A total of 50 studies estimated the MIC of a PROMIS measure, of which 19 studies used less appropriate methods. MIC values of the remaining 31 studies ranged from 0.1 to 12.7 T-score points. We recommend to use the predictive modeling method, possibly supplemented with the vignette-based method, in future MIC studies. We consider a MIC value of 2-6 T-score points for PROMIS measures reasonable to assume at this point. For surgical interventions a higher MIC value might be appropriate. We recommend more high-quality studies estimating MIC values for PROMIS.

PROMIS is a Valid Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Patients undergoing ACL Reconstruction with Multi-ligament Knee Reconstruction and Repair Procedures

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to (1) compare PROMIS with previously validated legacy instruments and (2) to assess between group differences of PROMIS PF-CAT [Physical Function Computer Adaptive Test] for patients undergoing isolated primary ACL reconstruction [ACLR] vs. primary ACL reconstruction with additional ligamentous intervention [MLIK].

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II; Prospective Cohort Study.

METHODS

At a single preoperative timepoint, 42 [MLIK] and 73[ACLR] patients completed: Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) Mental (MCS) and Physical Component Summary (PCS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), EuroQol-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) and Marx Knee Scale. Spearman correlation coefficients (non-parametric data) assessed correlations between PROMIS PF-CAT and legacy PROs [Patient-Reported Outcome instruments]. Floor and ceiling effects were assessed using chi-square tests. Between group differences were assessed (Wilcoxon Rank sum test).

RESULTS

PROMIS PF-CAT for the MLIK cohort [Table 2] demonstrated an excellent-good correlation with SF-36 Physical Function (PCS; r = 0.64, p < 0.01), EQ-5D (r = 0.68, p < 0.01), and KOOS Quality of Life (QOL) (r = 0.68, p < 0.01); good correlation with KOOS ADL (r = 0.52, p = 0.01), KOOS Sports (r = 0.44, p < 0.01), KOOS Pain (r = 0.44, p < 0.01) and WOMAC Function (r = 0.52,p = 0.01). PROMIS PF-CAT scores differed for ACL vs. MLIK cohorts (41.9 ± 6.6 vs. 37.6 ± 9.0, p < 0.01). PROMIS PF-CAT demonstrated the fewest floor and ceiling effects [Table 4] versus legacy PRO instruments.

CONCLUSION

PROMIS PF-CAT demonstrated strong correlations with previously validated PRO instruments and offers a favorable alternative for patients undergoing ACLR with MLIK repair/reconstruction procedures. Preoperative PROMIS PF-CAT scores were greater for patients undergoing primary ACLR versus MLIK intervention.

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

Purpose

To compare the performance of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF), pain interference (PIF), and depression computer adaptive tests (CAT) relative to legacy instruments in patients undergoing meniscal surgery.

Methods

Patients scheduled to undergo meniscal surgery completed legacy knee function PROMs (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS] subscores), Marx Activity Rating Scale (MARS), Veterans-Rand 12 (VR12), Short Form 12 (SF12), and the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) alongside PROMIS PF, PIF, and Depression preoperatively. Spearman rank correlations were calculated, and score distributions were examined for floor and ceiling effects.

Results

152 patients (46.6 ± 14.9 years, 67.1% male) completed PROMs for appropriate inclusion. PROMIS PF yielded high-moderate to high correlations with the IKDC and KOOS subscales (r = 0.61 to 0.73), demonstrating similar performance to the IKDC. PROMIS PIF demonstrated moderately high-moderate to high correlations with the IKDC, KOOS subscales, VR-12 Physical Component Score (PCS), and SF12 PCS (r = 0.62 to 0.71), performing comparably to KOOS Pain (r = 0.55 to 0.92). PROMIS Depression demonstrated moderate to high-moderate correlations with the mental health legacies (r = 0.46 to 0.66). Significant ceiling effects were observed for MARS (n = 29, 18.8%), and significant floor effects were exhibited by PROMIS Depression (n = 38, 25%) and MARS (n = 27, 17.6%).

Conclusion

The PROMIS PF, PIF CAT, and Depression instruments exhibit comparable performance profiles relative to legacy knee PROMs. PROMIS PF and PIF demonstrated no floor and ceiling effects, whereas PROMIS Depression exhibited a significant relative floor effect. PROMIS PF and PIF may be appropriately used to establish functional baselines preoperatively.

Level of Evidence

IV, diagnostic case series.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global Health Short Forms Demonstrate Responsiveness in Patients Undergoing Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is an alternative to legacy outcome metrics. We investigated the relationship between Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS-JR) and PROMIS Global Health forms of Physical Health (PH) and Mental Health (MH) in knee arthroplasty patients.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of knee arthroplasty patients from December 2017 through April 2019 who had surveys collected preoperatively and postoperatively. We excluded patients undergoing revision surgery. Outcome scores were analyzed for responsiveness, effect size index (ESI), minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and correlation with each other through 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

A total of 875 patients were included. Floor and ceiling effects were 0% for PROMIS-PH. Postoperative PROMIS-PH and KOOS-JR scores significantly correlated with one another and increased from baseline at each postoperative time point (P < .001 for all). PROMIS-MH did not change between time points (P > .05). PROMIS-PH showed moderate responsiveness at 1 and 3 months (ESI >0.2) and excellent responsiveness at 6 and 12 months (ESI >0.8), whereas KOOS-JR was responsive at all time points (ESI >0.8). The MCID of PROMIS-PH correlated significantly with KOOS-JR, and a preoperative PROMIS-PH score of less than 32.5 predicted achieving MCID with 97% specificity.

CONCLUSION

PROMIS global health forms are a valid metric which capture patient outcomes and correlate with KOOS-JR scores after knee arthroplasty. Although KOOS-JR may be more responsive in the early postoperative time period, both measures show excellent responsiveness at 6 and 12 months after knee arthroplasty.

Operative Intervention Does Not Change Pain Perception in Patients With Diabetic Foot Ulcers

Researchers investigated pain perception in patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) by analyzing pre- and postoperative physical function (PF), pain interference (PI), and depression domains of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS). They hypothesized that 1) because of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), a majority of patients with DFUs would have high PROMIS PI scores unchanged by operative intervention, and 2) the initially assessed PI, PF, and depression levels would be correlated with final outcomes. Seventy-five percent of patients with DFUs reported pain, most likely because of painful DPN. Those who reported high PI and low PF were likely to report depression. PF, PI, and depression levels were unchanged after operative intervention or healing of DFUs.