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

Trofa, David P.; Desai, Sohil S.; Li, Xinning; Makhni, Eric C.

doi:10.5435/jaaos-d-22-00030

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…14,15 Similar to the hip, PROMIS scores generally correlate with legacy instruments. 31,33,35 In patients with foot and ankle pathology 15 and those after knee arthroscopy, 12,17 the PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-PI subscales demonstrated similar responsiveness to legacy PROMs with group-level statistics. However, further studies are needed to investigate the accuracy of CIOVs for the PROMIS in identifying, grading, and classifying changes in scores at the individual level.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

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

Martin

Harris

Ellis

et al. 2023

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

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

Martin

Harris

Ellis

et al. 2023

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Legacy instruments often involve multiple domains (eg, pain, PF, and range of motion), and as a result, poor scores on such instruments may not identify the primary source of the poor score; PROMIS has the potential to improve overall efficiency when collecting PROMs. 22 Both the SF and CAT methods of administration require decreased overall time for completion when compared with many legacy instruments. Importantly, PROMIS has been cross-walked with several established legacy metrics to provide enhanced interpretation and additional clinical data points.…”

Section: Current Opportunities For Patient-reported Outcome Measures ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges and Opportunities for the Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Orthopaedic Pediatric and Sports Medicine Surgery

Kunze,

Madjarova,

Jaykumar

et al. 2023

J Am Acad Orthop Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are essential tools in assessing treatment response, informing clinical decision making, driving healthcare policy, and providing important prognostic data regarding patient health status change. These tools become essential in orthopaedic disciplines, such as pediatrics and sports medicine, given the diversity of patient populations and procedures. However, the creation and routine administration of standard PROMs alone do not suffice to appropriately facilitate the aforementioned functions. Indeed, both the interpretation and optimal application of PROMs are essential to provide to achieve greatest clinical benefit. Contemporary developments and technologies surrounding PROMs may help augment this benefit, including the application of artificial intelligence, novel PROM structure with improved interpretability and validity, and PROM delivery methods that provide increased access to patients resulting in greater compliance and data acquisition yields. Despite these exciting innovations, several challenges remain in this realm that must be addressed to continue to advance the clinical usefulness and subsequent benefit of PROMs. This review will highlight the opportunities and challenges surrounding contemporary PROM use in the orthopaedic subspecialties of pediatrics and sports medicine. P atient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become an integral part of clinical practice and musculoskeletal policy development. 1,2 Conventionally, implicated exclusively in research endeavors or variably used by clinicians, PROMs have now been implicated in several aspects of patient care beginning as early as the initiation of establishing care and spanning through long-term follow-up. 2,3 Although PROMs are used across several medical and surgical disciplines, they are particularly essential in

show abstract

“…Legacy Instruments, Advantages, and Limitations PROMIS is a dynamic instrument based on item response theory that focuses on health domains rather than specific diseases 12 . There are currently 102 PROMIS adult domains, and each addresses a different component of physical, mental, and social health 13 . PROMIS domains most frequently used to capture outcomes in spine patients include pain interference (PIf), physical function (PF), anxiety, and depression 14 .…”

Section: Promis Overview: Concepts Of Validation Comparisons Withmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

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

Cited by 6 publications

References 38 publications

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

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

Challenges and Opportunities for the Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Orthopaedic Pediatric and Sports Medicine Surgery

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About