Editorial Commentary: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Has Decreased Disease-Specific Responsiveness More Than Legacy Outcome Measures, But PROMIS and Legacy Measures Do Correlate: You Can’t Have Your Cake and Eat It Too

Abstract

A better understanding of hip-preservation patients lies in our ability to analyze and collect data. Collecting the appropriate outcome measures is required to improve treatments, personalize health care, and drive policy. Current research suggests legacy measures and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures can be used in data collection, but which measures are best? PROMIS computer-adaptive tests are an attractive outcome measure source because they allow for low-burden data capture with reduced completion times and limited floor and ceiling effects. PROMIS provides numerous reliable, sensitive, and domain-specific measurements capturing a patient's health outcomes. PROMIS has been shown to correlate with hip and other legacy outcome measures, but because PROMIS is more general than some legacy measures, it may be less responsive. PROMIS measures are applicable across a wide spectrum of health measures for our patients, including hip femoroacetabular impingement, but should not replace the legacy measure of the International Hip Outcome Tool 12. However, PROMIS should still be measured because it may allow greater comparison to studies of other conditions resulting in diminished reporting bias.

Is the VISA-A Still Seaworthy, or Is It in Need of Maintenance?

“… 3 , 32 However, a counterargument is the potential trade-off in responsiveness compared with disease-specific measures. 18 Our results support the latter viewpoint; the PROMIS-29 subscales are not responsive enough to evaluate changes in Achilles tendinopathy.…”

Emerging Need for PROMs to Measure the Impact of Spine Disorders on Overall Health and Well-being: Measuring Expectations as an Example for Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

“…These new measures should complement and not attempt to replace existing PROMS such as the ODI and PROMIS which effectively measure what they were developed and intended for, namely proximal effects of the spine and single health attributes, respectively. As others have concluded, it is unlikely that a single PROM can fulfill all objectives; instead, the choice of PROMs should be guided by the purpose of the inquiry [23].…”

Editorial Commentary: An Optimal Classification System to Guide Prognosis and Treatment in Greater Trochanteric Pain Syndrome: Now We’re Speaking the Same Language

“…The optimistic "glass half-full" sees the situation as hip preservation because surgeons are increasingly collecting outcomes, but the pessimistic "glass half-empty" sees the situation as we're all collecting different scores, at different times, for different conditions without appropriate classifications. 4,5 Unfortunately, the latter is based on central and peripheral compartment hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome and chondrolabral pathology, a much more common surgically treated entity than extra-articular disorders surgically treated with peritrochanteric endoscopy.…”