Evaluation of Version 2.0 of the PROMIS Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test in Nonshoulder Upper Extremity Patients

PROMIS Global Physical Health Subscale Strongly Correlates and Performs Similarly to the QuickDASH in Hand and Upper Extremity Patients

BACKGROUND

The Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) is a validated, static hand and upper extremity patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) commonly used. However, with the growth of PROM implementation across orthopedic and plastic surgery clinics, it is beneficial to determine whether a more general PROM can be used to capture the same insights. This would ease implementation broadly. There is a paucity of literature assessing whether the QuickDASH and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global-10 are correlated and perform similarly.

METHODS

Between June 2016 and December 2020, hand and upper extremity patients seeking care at clinics associated with a single quaternary academic medical center were identified. Those who completed the PROMIS Global-10 and QuickDASH as part of routine care were identified. The PROMIS Global-10 is divided into the PROMIS Global Physical Health and PROMIS Global Mental Health subscores. Spearman rho (ρ) correlations were calculated across PROMs, and ceiling and floor effects were determined.

RESULTS

Across the 18 744 included patients, there was a strong correlation and strong-moderate correlation found between the QuickDASH and PROMIS Global Physical Health (ρ = 0.70, P < .001) and PROMIS Global Mental Health (ρ = 0.69, P < .001), respectively. Although small, QuickDASH demonstrates the worst floor effect (2.6%, [n = 478]), whereas PROMIS Global Mental Health demonstrated a much more notable ceiling effect (11%, [n = 2034]).

CONCLUSIONS

The PROMIS Global-10 can be used to assess the functional status of patients presenting for hand and upper extremity concerns, while also capturing aspects of mental health. The PROMIS Global-10 may ease PROM implementation broadly.

Evaluation of Test-Retest Reliability for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity and Pain Interference Computer Adaptive Tests in a Hand Surgery Population

PURPOSE

Utilization of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) upper extremity (UE) and pain interference (PI) computer adaptive tests (CAT) has grown in the hand surgery literature. However, these instruments were derived using data from a general population rather than cohorts with UE pathology. As such, our primary purpose was to evaluate the test-retest reliability of the UE and PI CATs in a sample of hand surgery patients.

METHODS

At a tertiary academic center, we recruited adult (≥18 years) orthopedic hand surgery patients who completed the PROMIS UE and PI CAT 1-7 days prior to their office appointment, plus a subsequent response to both instruments in clinic. Patients were included only if their upper extremity symptoms were stable between questionnaires, as assessed by an anchor question (eg, no change in scores is expected). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to assess test-retest reliability. Bland-Altman Plots were created to visualize the proportion of patients whose scores differed by a value greater than the minimally clinically important difference for both instruments (4.1 for UE CAT, 4.3 for PI CAT).

RESULTS

The 88 included patients had a mean age of 54 ± 18 years, and 56% (56/88) were women. There was a mean of 4 ± 2 days between surveys. The UE CAT demonstrated an ICC of 0.87 (95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.80-0.91), consistent with "good" to "excellent" reliability. The PI CAT ICC was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.76-0.89), consistent with "good" reliability. However, 34% (30/88) and 23% (20/88) of patients had UE CAT and PI CAT score differences that exceeded minimally clinically important difference thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

For a hand surgery cohort (population level), the UE CAT demonstrated "good" to "excellent" test-retest reliability, and the PI CAT demonstrated "good" reliability. However at the patient level, score differences were clinically relevant in approximately one of three patients for UE CAT and one of four patients for the PI CAT. We conclude that these instruments are reliable at the population level, but should not be used at the level of individual hand surgery patients.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic II.

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.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Can Serve as a Functional Substitute for Grip Strength

Background  Grip strength has traditionally been seen as an objective measurement of hand function, while the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity (PROMIS UE) has emerged recently as a common patient-reported outcome metric for similar purposes. The primary objective of this study was to determine if a correlation exists between grip strength, PROMIS UE, and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) scores in hand and upper extremity clinic patients. Methods  PROMIS UE, Pain Interference (PI), and Depression (D), as well as QuickDASH were prospectively administered to patients from July 16 to September 3, 2020. A grip strength ratio (GSR), calculated by dividing the grip strength of the injured hand by that of the noninjured hand, was recorded for each individual to control for personal differences in grip strength. Data were analyzed using Spearman's correlation coefficients with the significance level at p  < 0.05. Results  Fifty patients participated in this study. The median GSR was 0.55. QuickDASH demonstrated strong correlations with both PROMIS UE and PI ( r (48) = -0.81, p  < 0.05; r (48) = 0.86, p  < 0.05). GSR correlated moderately with PROMIS UE ( r (48) = 0.63, p  < 0.05). Finally, GSR and QuickDASH also exhibited moderate correlation with each other ( r (48) = -0.62, p  < 0.05). Conclusion  PROMIS UE and QuickDASH are shown to correlate moderately with GSR. This suggests the PROMIS UE forms as an effective measure of hand/wrist function in hand clinic patients and may be substituted for grip strength measurements.

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.

Crosswalk between the PROMIS physical function CAT and PROMIS upper extremity CAT v1.2 in a hand surgery population

BACKGROUND

There is no gold standard patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in hand surgery. As a result, a diverse array of PROM instruments have been utilized across centers over time. Lack of score interchangeability limits the ability to compare or conglomerate scores when new instruments are introduced. Our aim was to develop a linkage for the PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 and PROMIS PF CAT scores and develop crosswalk tables for interconversion between these PROMs.

METHODS

Retrospective review was conducted to identify adult (≥ 18y) patients seen by orthopaedic hand surgeons at a single academic tertiary care hospital who had completed PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 and PROMIS PF CAT score at the same visit. For those with multiple visits, only one randomly selected visit was included in the analyses. Pearson's correlation was calculated to determine the linear relationship between the scores. Linkage from PF to UE was performed utilizing several commonly utilized equating models (identity, mean, linear, equipercentile and circle-arc methods). The performance of the models was assessed using intraclass correlation (ICC) between observed PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 and estimated PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 scores generated using the model as well as Root Mean Square Error (RMSE). The model chosen as the 'best' was further assessed for population invariance using root expected mean squared difference (REMSD) where < 0.08 were considered good.

RESULTS

Of 10,081 included patients, mean age was 48.3 (SD = 17.0), and 54% were female (5,477/10,081). Mean UE CAT v1.2 and PF CAT scores were 37 (SD = 9.8) and 46 (SD = 10.0), respectively. There was a strong correlation between the scores (Pearson correlation r = 0.70). All methods performed acceptably (ICC ≥ 0.66 and RMSE < = 7.52 for all). The equipercentile method had the highest ICC (ICC = 0.70 (95% CI 0.69-0.71)) while the mean and circle arc methods had the lowest RMSE. The circle arc method is the most reliable with the smallest standard error and has satisfactory population invariance across age group (REMSD 0.065) and sex (REMSD 0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

Crosswalk tables to be used for bidirectional conversion between scores were created.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Establishing the Patient Acceptable Symptom State in a Nonshoulder Hand and Upper Extremity Population for the QuickDASH and PROMIS UE Computer Adaptive Tests

PURPOSE

It is unclear what score thresholds on patient-reported outcomes instruments reflect an acceptable level of upper extremity (UE) function from the perspective of patients undergoing hand surgery. The purpose of this study was to calculate the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) UE Computer Adaptive Test (CAT), version 2.0, in a population who underwent hand surgery.

METHODS

Adult patients who underwent hand surgery between February 2019 and December 2019 at a single academic tertiary institution were identified. QuickDASH and PROMIS UE CAT version 2.0 scores were collected 1 year after surgery, as were separate symptom- and function-specific anchor questions that queried the acceptability of patients' current state. Threshold values predictive of a patient reporting an acceptable symptom state (PASS[+]) were calculated for both instruments using the 75th percentile score for patients in the PASS(+) group and the Youden Index as determined by receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 222 patients were included. QuickDASH and PROMIS UE CAT scores differed significantly between the PASS(+) and PASS(-) groups. The 75th percentile method yielded PASS values of <16 for the QuickDASH and >43 for the PROMIS UE CAT for both anchor questions. The ROC analysis yielded PASS estimates of <15.9 to <20.5 for the QuickDASH and >38.1 to >46.2 for the PROMIS UE CAT, with ranges calculated from differing threshold values for each of the 2 anchor questions. The ROC-based estimates demonstrated high levels of model discrimination (area under the curve ≥ 0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

We propose PASS estimates obtained using the 75th percentile and ROC methods.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Specifically, PASS values in the range of 15.9-20.5 for the QuickDASH and 38.1-46.2 for the PROMIS UE CAT version 2.0 should be used when interpreting outcomes at a population level.

What are the Minimum Clinically Important Difference Values for the PROMIS and QuickDASH After Carpal Tunnel Release? A Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

To better define the clinical significance of patient-reported outcomes, the concept of a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) exists. The MCID is the minimum change that a patient will perceive as meaningful. Prior attempts to determine the MCID after carpal tunnel release are limited by methodologic concerns, including the lack of a true anchor-based MCID calculation.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

To address previous methodologic concerns in existing studies, as well as establish a clinically useful value for clinicians, we asked: What are the MCID values for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity (UE), PROMIS Pain Interference (PI), and the QuickDASH after carpal tunnel release?

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study at an urban, Midwest, multihospital, academic health system. One hundred forty-seven adult patients undergoing unilateral carpal tunnel release between September 2020 and February 2022 were identified. PROMIS UE, PI, and QuickDASH scores were collected preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively. We also collected responses to an anchor-based question: "Since your treatment, how would you rate your overall function?" (much worse, worse, slightly worse, no change, slightly improved, improved, or much improved). Patients who did not respond to the 3-month postoperative surveys were excluded. A total of 122 patients were included in the final analysis (83% response proportion [122 of 147]). The mean age was 57 years (range 23 to 87 years), and 68% were women. The MCID was calculated using both anchor-based and distribution-based methods. Although anchor-based calculations are generally considered more clinically relevant because they consider patients' perceptions of improvement, an estimation of the minimum detectable change (which represents measurement error) relies on a distribution-based calculation. We determined a range of MCID values to propose a final MCID value for all three instruments. A negative MCID value for the PROMIS PI instrument represents a decrease in pain, whereas a positive value for the PROMIS UE instrument represents an improvement in function. A negative value for the QuickDASH instrument represents an increase in function.

RESULTS

The final proposed MCID values were 6.2 (interquartile range [IQR] 5.4 to 9.0) for the PROMIS UE, -7.8 (IQR -6.1 to -8.5) for the PROMIS PI, and -18.2 (IQR -13.3 to -34.1) for the QuickDASH.

CONCLUSION

We recommend that clinicians use the following values as the MCID after carpal tunnel release: 6 for the UE, -8 for the PI, and -18 for the QuickDASH. Surgeons may find these values useful when counseling patients postoperatively regarding improvement. Future studies could examine whether a single MCID (or small range) for PROMIS instruments is applicable to a variety of conditions and interventions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, therapeutic study.

Evaluation of Preoperative Factors Affecting Midterm Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Ligament Reconstruction Tendon Interposition: A Prognostic Study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of preoperative patient-reported outcomes as predictors of functional improvement following ligament reconstruction tendon interposition. We hypothesized that high levels of preoperative pain interference (PI) and upper-extremity disability are associated with lower magnitudes of functional improvement ≥1 year after surgery on the shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) (primary outcome) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity (UE) Computer Adaptive Test (CAT) (UE CAT) v1.2 (secondary outcome).

METHODS

Adult patients who underwent ligament reconstruction tendon interposition between February 2014 and April 2018 at an academic tertiary institution were considered for inclusion in this longitudinal cohort study. Patient-reported outcomes were collected at baseline and ≥1 year after surgery. Univariate and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with the magnitude of functional improvement on the QuickDASH and UE CAT.

RESULTS

Among 93 included participants, the mean age was 61 ± 7 years, and 75 (81%) were women. At 2.5 ± 1.0 years after surgery, the QuickDASH and UE CAT improved by a mean of 24.5 ± 20.9 and 9.9 ± 10.7 points, respectively. In the primary multivariable model, a greater preoperative QuickDASH (indicative of lower function; coefficient, 0.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6 to 0.9) and lower preoperative Performance of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System PI CAT (eg, less pain interference; coefficient, -0.7; 95% CI, -1.2 to -0.2) were associated with greater QuickDASH improvement independent of potential confounders. In the secondary multivariable model, lower preoperative UE CAT (indicative of worse function; coefficient, -0.9; 95% CI, -1.1 to -0.7) and lower preoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System PI CAT (coefficient, -0.3; 95% CI, -0.6 to -0.1) were associated with greater UE CAT improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative patient-reported outcomes may be useful in understanding the degree of improvement that certain patient populations can expect from ligament reconstruction tendon interposition. Those with lower baseline (preoperative) upper-extremity function and PI are expected to derive the greatest functional improvement in the midterm.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic IV.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Is Not as Responsive as Legacy Scores in Detecting Patient Outcomes in Hip Preservation: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To evaluate publication trends of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) in hip preservation literature, assess the usage of PROMIS as an outcome measure, and evaluate correlations of all available published PROMIS domains with legacy patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

METHODS

The PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar databases were queried for articles evaluating PROMIS scores among hip preservation populations. Inclusion criteria consisted of studies with Level IV evidence or above (per the Sackett et al. levels of evidence), such as case series and cohort studies, reporting on perioperative use of hip PROMIS scores. Exclusion criteria consisted of arthroplasty and trauma studies. Patient demographics, PROMIS usage, and PROMIS Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficients to historic PROs were recorded for each study.

RESULTS

Fifteen articles published between 2017 and 2021 were included in the analysis, with the majority (75%) published between 2020 and 2021. Studies assessing postoperative outcomes had follow-up periods ranging from 6 months to 5 years. The most common PROMIS domain reported was Physical Function (PF), and there was varying usage of other domains including Pain Intensity, Anxiety, and Depression. PROMIS validity was most often assessed in comparison to the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) by calculating the Pearson coefficient, which assumes normal data distribution, or Spearman coefficient, which is rank-based and does not require normal data distribution. Studies comparing PROMIS-PF with mHHS reported Pearson coefficients ranging from 0.49 to 0.72 and Spearman coefficients ranging from 0.67 to 0.71.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been a chronologic increase in PROMIS usage in hip preservation literature. PROMIS demonstrates moderate-to-strong correlations with legacy PROs, but there is substantial heterogeneity in follow-up periods, PROMIS domains used, and statistical methodology. The current data show that PROMIS is not as responsive as historically used, validated PROs in quantitatively assessing function and pain in hip preservation patients.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Surgeons using PROMIS solely should be aware that the score may not be as responsive as legacy PROs in closely assessing improvements or deterioration in patient performance after hip preservation surgery. Rather than being used alone, PROMIS may be useful as a replacement for a group of legacy PROs. Thus, when used alongside select legacy PROs, overall questionnaire burden can be reduced while maintaining a high level of accuracy in assessing health status.

The Responsiveness of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity and Physical Function in Patients With Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

PURPOSE

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity (UE) and PROMIS Physical Function (PF) are increasingly referenced patient-reported outcomes. To interpret treatment effects with these patient-reported outcomes, investigators must understand magnitudes of change that represent clinically relevant improvement. This study assessed the responsiveness of PROMIS UE and PF in patients with cubital tunnel syndrome.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of PROMIS UE and PROMIS PF computer adaptive test scores was performed for patients treated nonoperatively for cubital tunnel syndrome over 3 years at a tertiary institution. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System UE and PROMIS PF outcome scores were collected at initial and return clinic visits. At follow-up appointments, patients completed clinical anchor questions evaluating their degree of interval clinical improvement. Anchor questions allowed categorization of patients into groups that had experienced "no change," "minimal change," and "much change." Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values were calculated for the PROMIS assessments with anchor-based and distribution-based methods.

RESULTS

A total of 304 patients with PROMIS PF scores and 111 with PROMIS UE scores were analyzed. The MCID for the PROMIS UE was 3.1 (95% confidence interval, 1.4-4.8) using the anchor-based method and 3.7 (95% confidence interval, 2.9-4.4) using the distribution-based method. These point estimates exceeded the minimal detectable change of 2.3. The MCID for the PROMIS PF was unable to be determined in this patient sample because patients reporting mild change did not have score changes exceeding measurement error.

CONCLUSIONS

The PROMIS UE v2.0 computer adaptive test detected minimal change in patients managed nonoperatively for cubital tunnel syndrome with an estimated MCID range of 3.1-3.7. While PROMIS PF has demonstrated acceptable performance in patients with a variety of upper extremity conditions, for cubital tunnel syndrome, it was less able to detect subtle change. PROMIS UE appears more responsive to subtle changes in cubital tunnel syndrome symptoms.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Patient-reported outcomes may have varied responsiveness depending on the condition studied.

The upper extremity postthrombotic syndrome score: an international Delphi consensus study to determine the score's functional disability component

Background

In upper extremity thrombosis research, the occurrence of upper extremity postthrombotic syndrome (UE-PTS) is commonly used as the main outcome parameter. However, there is currently no reporting standard or a validated method to assess UE-PTS presence and severity. In a recent Delphi study, consensus was reached on a preliminary UE-PTS score, combining 5 symptoms, 3 signs, and the inclusion of a functional disability score. However, no consensus was reached on which functional disability score to be included.

Objectives

The aim of the current Delphi consensus study was to determine the specific type of functional disability score to finalize UE-PTS score.

Methods

This Delphi project was designed as a three-round study using open text questions, statements with 7-point Likert scales, and multiple-choice questions. The CREDES recommendations for Delphi studies were applied. In this context, a systematic review was conducted before the start of the Delphi rounds to identify the available functional disability scores as available in the literature and present these to the expert panel.

Results

Thirty-five of 47 initially invited international experts from multiple disciplines completed all the Delphi rounds. In the second round, consensus was reached on the incorporation of the quick disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (QuickDASH) in the UE-PTS score, rendering the third round obsolete.

Conclusion

Consensus was reached that the QuickDASH should be incorporated in the UE-PTS score. The UE-PTS score will need to be validated in a large cohort of patients with upper extremity thrombosis before it can be used in clinical practice and future research.

Evaluation of the PROMIS Upper Extremity Against Validated Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients With Early Carpometacarpal Osteoarthritis

PURPOSE

Internal consistency, construct, and criterion validity of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) upper extremity (UE) v1.2 were evaluated in patients with early-stage carpometacarpal (CMC) osteoarthritis (OA). We hypothesized that in patients with early CMC OA, PROMIS UE scores would: (1) be lower than those in asymptomatic controls; (2) correlate with established patient-reported outcomes; (3) correlate with pinch and grip strengths; and (4) not correlate with radiographic disease progression.

METHODS

Patients with early CMC OA (modified Eaton stage 0 or 1) and matched asymptomatic control patients completed the PROMIS UE, Australian and Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index, and Patient-Rated Wrist-Hand Evaluation at 2 time points. The PROMIS UE's internal consistency was evaluated by Cronbach's alpha, construct validity by Spearman correlation coefficients among the patient-reported outcome measures, and criterion validity using measures of strength. A floor or ceiling effect was indicated if more than 15% of patients achieved the lowest or highest possible score.

RESULTS

The PROMIS UE had high internal consistency. Patients with early CMC OA had a lower score than healthy controls (average, 42 vs 54, respectively). We observed moderate to high correlations between the PROMIS UEv1.2, Australian and Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index, and Patient-Rated Wrist-Hand Evaluation and good criterion validity when compared to key pinch and grip strengths. The PROMIS UE did not correlate to radiographic disease severity.

CONCLUSIONS

The PROMIS UE had a high correlation with Australian and Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index and a moderate correlation with Patient-Rated Wrist-Hand Evaluation. The PROMIS UE had high internal consistency and good criterion validity.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The PROMIS UE is a valid assessment for disability in patients with early CMC OA and can serve as a clinical adjunct to an outcome assessment.

Establishing the Substantial Clinical Benefit in a Non-Shoulder Hand and Upper Extremity Population for the QuickDASH and PROMIS Upper Extremity and Physical Function Computer Adaptive Tests

PURPOSE

It is unclear what score changes on the abbreviated Disabilities of the Arm, Hand, and Shoulder (QuickDASH), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) upper extremity (UE) computer adaptive test (CAT), and PROMIS physical function (PF) CAT represent a substantial improvement. We calculated the substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for these 3 instruments in a non-shoulder hand and upper extremity population.

METHODS

Adult patients treated between March 2015 and September 2019 at a single academic tertiary institution were identified. The QuickDASH, PROMIS UE CAT v2.0, and PROMIS PF CAT v2.0 scores were collected using a tablet computer. Responses to the QuickDASH both at baseline and follow-up 6 ± 4 weeks later, and a response to the anchor question "Compared to your first evaluation at the University Orthopaedic Center, how would you describe your physical function level now?" were required for inclusion. A second anchor question querying treatment-related improvement was also used. The SCB was calculated using an anchor-based approach comparing the mean change difference between groups reporting no change and a maximal change for both anchor questions.

RESULTS

Of 1,119 included participants, the mean age was 48 ± 17 years, 53% were women, and half were recovering from surgery. Score changes between baseline and follow-up were significantly different between groups reporting no improvement and maximal improvement on both anchor questions. The SCB values ranged between 16.9 and 22.8 on the QuickDASH, 5.9 and 7.1 on the UE CAT, and 3.5 and 6.7 on the PF CAT.

CONCLUSIONS

These score improvements for the QuickDASH, UE CAT, and PF CAT represent a substantial clinical improvement in a non-shoulder hand and upper extremity population.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

These SCB estimates may assist with the interpretation of outcome scores at a population level.

Using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures to Screen for Cognitive Function Deficits and Stigma in Patients with Single-Suture Craniosynostosis

SUMMARY

Children with single-suture craniosynostosis have small but significant deficits in appearance ratings and neurodevelopment. Traditionally, these parameters are studied using a full battery of examinations, which are very time consuming. This study evaluated a convenient method to measure psychosocial parameters in this population by utilizing patient-reported outcomes measures to evaluate cognitive function and stigma. Stigma and cognitive function were measured, using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System and Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders questionnaires, in 59 consecutive patients at least 5 years old presenting to clinic from July of 2018 to January of 2020 with repaired single-suture craniosynostosis. Parents completed parent proxy cognitive function surveys for patients under age 8. Questionnaires were administered electronically as part of clinical care. Scores were automatically transferred to the electronic medical record and correlated with previously acquired Child Behavior Checklist results. Median time to complete the questionnaires was 57 and 49 seconds, respectively. Stigma and cognitive function were significantly correlated with the associated Child Behavior Checklist subscores (Spearman's rho, -0.384, p = 0.023; and Spearman's rho, -0.683, p = 0.001, respectively). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System and Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders questionnaires offer a convenient method of screening psychosocial parameters in children with single-suture craniosynostosis that otherwise would be difficult to obtain during standard visits. Short completion times and electronic scoring increase clinical utility.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic, II.

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.

Early Improvement in Patient-Reported Outcome Scores After Operative Treatment of Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Humeral Capitellum

PURPOSE

Outcome measures that lack sensitivity for the detection of clinical changes early after surgery for capitellar osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) make it difficult to determine the optimal treatment for these defects. We sought to evaluate the early responsiveness of patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) scores in a cohort of patients operatively treated for capitellar OCD.

METHODS

Four PROMIS questionnaires (mobility, upper extremity [UE], pain interference, and peer relations) were electronically administered to patients treated for capitellar OCD at a single tertiary academic medical center between January 1, 2015, and July 1, 2018. The questionnaires were administered at the initial preoperative outpatient clinic visit as well as at the 2-week, 6-week, and final return-to-play (RTP) visits.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients (31 elbows, mean age 12.9 years) with available preoperative and postoperative PROMIS data were included. The mean final follow-up period was 26 weeks. Compared with that before surgery, there was a significant improvement in the mobility, pain interference, and UE scores at 6 weeks following surgery. The scores improved most significantly by 6 weeks, reached a relative plateau, and remained significantly improved through the RTP visit thereafter. Patients with preoperative, intra-articular loose bodies scored significantly better than those without them during the 6-week and RTP visits. Patients with lesions >1 cm², compared with those with lesions ≤1 cm², demonstrated greater improvement in the UE scores during the RTP visit.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing operative treatment for capitellar OCD, a significant improvement in the PROMIS domains of mobility, pain interference, and UE can be expected early in the postoperative period, with majority of patients reaching their greatest improvement in scores by 6 weeks following surgery.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This is important information for preoperative counseling. In addition, this information is helpful in confirming that PROMIS scores are responsive in the detection of changes in outcomes during the early postoperative period in this population.

Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for the PROMIS Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test Version 2.0 in a Nonshoulder Hand and Upper Extremity Population

PURPOSE

Our primary purpose was to calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity (UE) Computer Adaptive Test (CAT) version 2.0 (v2.0) for a nonshoulder hand and upper extremity population. Secondarily, we calculated the PROMIS Physical Function (PF) CAT v2.0 and the abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) MCID.

METHODS

Adult patients treated by 1 of 5 fellowship-trained hand surgeons between March 2015 and September 2019 at an academic tertiary institution were identified. The PROMIS UE CAT v2.0, PROMIS PF CAT v2.0, and QuickDASH were collected via tablet computer. Inclusion required response to at least 1 of the instruments at both baseline and follow-up (6 ± 4 weeks), and a response to the anchor question: "Compared to your first evaluation at the University Orthopaedic Center, how would you describe your physical function level now?" An additional anchor question assessing treatment-related improvement was also asked. The MCID was calculated using an anchor-based approach using the mean change difference between groups reporting no change and slight change for both anchor questions, and with the 1/2 SD method.

RESULTS

Of 2,106 participants, mean age was 48 ± 17 years, 53% were female, and 53% were recovering from surgery. Of these patients, 381 completed the PROMISE UE CAT v2.0, 497 completed the PROMIS PF CAT v2.0, and 2,018 completed the QuickDASH. The score change between baseline and follow-up was significantly different between anchor groups for both anchor-based MCID calculations. Anchor-based MCID values were 3.0 to 4.0 for the UE CAT, 2.1 to 3.6 for the PF CAT, and 10.3 for the QuickDASH. The MCID values per the 1/2 SD method were 4.1, 4.1, and 10.2, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose MCID ranges of 3.0 to 4.1 for the PROMIS UE CAT v2.0, and 2.1 to 4.1 for the PROMIS PF CAT v2.0. The observed QuickDASH MCID values (10.2-10.3) are within the range of previously published values.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

These MCID estimates will aid in interpreting clinical outcomes and in powering clinical studies.

A psychometric comparison of patient-reported outcome measures used in pediatric hand therapy

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

INTRODUCTION

Patient-reported outcome measures are important for research and also for informing clinical practice. The Pediatric Outcomes Data Collection Instrument (PODCI) and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) are commonly used in pediatric hand therapy. Both are validated in research, but no data exist regarding their relative merits for clinical practice.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

This study compares the psychometric properties of the PODCI and COPM in children receiving hand therapy to examine their relative utility in clinical practice.

METHODS

We assessed the psychometric properties of the PODCI and COPM in 75 children receiving hand therapy. Treatment outcomes were assessed simultaneously with the PODCI (Upper Extremity Function and Pain and Comfort scales), COPM (Performance and Satisfaction scales) at baseline and posttreatment time points. Interim scores were included for a subset of patients. Each scale was assessed for responsiveness, ceiling effect, and concurrent and discriminate validity.

RESULTS

All scales, except PODCI/Pain from interim to completion, were able to detect changes over the course of therapy. However, both COPM scales demonstrated greater responsiveness and less severe ceiling effects than both PODCI scales at all time points. All scales had weak concurrent validity and limited discriminate validity.

CONCLUSIONS

The COPM is more responsive to changes during treatment and less hindered by a ceiling effect than the PODCI. Weak concurrent validity between the PODCI and COPM suggests that they measure different things in this population.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the PROMIS Upper-Extremity Computer Adaptive Test and QuickDASH for Ligament Reconstruction Tendon Interposition Patients

PURPOSE

To calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test (UE CAT) and Quick-Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) for ligament reconstruction tendon interposition (LRTI) patients.

METHODS

Adult patients treated with LRTI for trapeziometacarpal OA by fellowship-trained hand surgeons between December 2014 and February 2018 at an academic tertiary institution were included. Outcomes were prospectively collected at each visit by tablet computer, including the QuickDASH, PROMIS UE, Pain Interference, Depression, and Anxiety CATs. Inclusion required a response to the anchor question "How much relief and/or improvement do you feel you have experienced as a result of your treatment?" on a 6-option Likert scale, as well as preoperative (≤120 days before surgery) and follow-up (2-26 weeks) outcomes. We calculated MCID both by an anchor-based approach using the mean score of the minimal change group, and with the 0.5 SD method.

RESULTS

Of 145 included participants, mean age was 63 ± 8 years and 74% were female. Anchor-based MCID estimates for the total cohort were 4.2 for the PROMIS UE CAT and 8.8 for the QuickDASH. The MCID estimates using the 0.5 SD method were 4.8 and 11.7, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose MCID values of 4.2 to 4.8 for the PROMIS UE CAT and 8.8 to 11.7 for the QuickDASH when powering clinical studies or when assessing improvement among a cohort of patients who have undergone LRTI surgery.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Minimal clinically important difference estimates are helpful when interpreting clinical outcomes after LRTI and for powering prospective trials.

Evaluating the performance of PROMIS and QuickDASH instruments in an intercollegiate Division 1 athlete population

BACKGROUND

Athletes demonstrate high levels of physical function, leading to difficulties in patient-reported outcome scoring and interpretation. In particular, the ability of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments to adequately discriminate between high levels of upper extremity function-that is, the ceiling effect-is limited. This study evaluated performance characteristics of the shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) survey and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) metrics in a population of Division 1 intercollegiate athletes, with specific attention to ceiling effects.

METHODS

At a single institution, Division I intercollegiate athletes cleared for full participation in the 2018-2019 season were eligible. The following PROs were collected prospectively via tablet computer: PROMIS upper extremity (UE) computer adaptive test (CAT), PROMIS physical function (PF) CAT, QuickDASH, and QuickDASH Sports/Performing Arts Module. Descriptive statistics, and ceiling and floor effects, were calculated. The proportion of athletes with maximal scores on each PRO were compared to normative values using the 1-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.

RESULTS

A total of 268 participants were included; the mean age was 19.9 ± 1.5 years, 49% were female, and 61% were overhead athletes. Large ceiling effects were observed for the UE CAT (46%), QuickDASH (58%), and QuickDASH Sports Module (82%). The PF CAT demonstrated a relatively low ceiling effect of 6.7%. Athlete scores were all significantly better than published age-matched values from a normative population for all instruments, with the exception of no difference on the QuickDASH for males.

DISCUSSION AND/OR CONCLUSION

The PROMIS UE CAT and QuickDash instruments are limited in their ability to assess and discriminate upper extremity function in highly functioning individuals such as Division I athletes. The PROMIS PF CAT, a measure of general physical function, did not suffer from a large ceiling effect.

Upper Extremity Function, Peer Relationships, and Pain Interference: Evaluating the Biopsychosocial Model in a Pediatric Hand Surgery Population Using PROMIS

PURPOSE

The relationship between biopsychosocial factors and patient-reported function is less clear in pediatric than in adult hand surgery patients. Our primary hypothesis was that pain interference (PI) and peer relationships (PR) would demonstrate association with upper extremity function. Secondarily, we hypothesized that the magnitude of this effect would increase with age.

METHODS

Patients aged 5 to 17 years presenting to a tertiary academic clinic between October 2017 and January 2019 were included. The parent/guardian was administered the following instruments after indicating they, rather than the patient, were answering the questions on a tablet computer: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity (UE) Parent Proxy (PP) Computer Adaptive Test (CAT) v2.0, PROMIS PI PP CAT v2.0, and the PROMIS PR PP CAT v2.0. Ceiling/floor effects and Spearman correlations were calculated. Multivariable Tobit modeling was performed to determine whether biopsychosocial factors and upper extremity function were associated. Multivariable regression coefficients were compared between age cohorts using a separate multivariable model to evaluate the interaction between age and other predictors.

RESULTS

Of 139 included participants, the mean age was 11.7 ± 3.7 years and 50% were female. For patients 11 years of age or younger, UE was weakly correlated with PI (coefficient, -0.34; 95% confidence interval, -0.56 to -0.08) and was not correlated with PR. For patients older than 11 years, UE had moderate correlation with PI (coefficient, -0.60; 95% confidence interval, -0.72 to -0.45) and was not correlated with PR. Multivariable analysis demonstrated a significant negative association between PI and UE, with a significantly larger magnitude of effect for patients older than 11 years of age.

CONCLUSIONS

The biopsychosocial model applies to pediatric hand surgery patients. The association between greater pain interference and worse patient-reported upper extremity function, as assessed using parent proxy instruments, was significantly stronger for patients older than 11 years than those 11 years old or younger.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study suggests that the biopsychosocial model applies to pediatric hand patients.

Measuring Outcomes Over Time in Distal Radius Fractures: A Comparison of Generic, Upper Extremity-Specific and Wrist-Specific Outcome Measures

Purpose

This study compared the responsiveness of a generic (Short Form-36 [SF-36]), an upper extremity-specific (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand [DASH]) and a wrist-specific (Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation [PRWE]) outcome score when evaluating distal radius fractures over time.

Methods

We observed 235 patients who met the inclusion criteria of an isolated distal radius fracture treated surgically or nonsurgically and greater than age 50 years for 12 months in this prospective study. Standardized assessments were performed at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. Exclusion criteria included subjects with concomitant injuries in the ipsilateral limb and follow-up of less than 1 year. Responsiveness was evaluated through the standardized response mean and the proportion who met a minimal clinically important difference. Floor and ceiling effects were also calculated.

Results

The standardized response mean was significantly greatest for the DASH between baseline and 6 months (P < .001), and the PRWE between both baseline and 6 months (P < .01) and 6 and 12 months (P < .01) compared with the SF-36. The proportion of patients who met a minimal clinically important difference between baseline and 6 months was greater in the PRWE, but it did not meet statistical significance (P = .12). The PRWE demonstrated a high ceiling effect at baseline (76.6%) but less so at 12 months (16.9%). The DASH demonstrated similar ceiling effects at baseline (62.9%) and 12 months (18.6%). The SF-36 had no ceiling effect.

Conclusions

In the first 6 months, both the DASH and PRWE have greater responsiveness in assessing change over the SF-36 in distal radius fractures. From 6 to 12 months, the wrist-specific PRWE has greater responsiveness over both the DASH and SF-36. This supports the use of the anatomy- and injury-specific outcome measures over the generic outcome measure in detecting change over a patient's early recovery. However, as the time from injury increases, the absence of a ceiling effect from the generic outcome measure may become more useful.

Clinical relevance

This study demonstrates the responsiveness of the DASH, PRWE, and SF36 in assessing distal radius fractures treated in patients greater than age 50 in the first year. In establishing the most responsive measure, respondent burden can be decreased in future research.

Understanding PROMIS

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

Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) in Hand Surgery: Does a One-Question Outcome Instrument Compare Favorably?

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outcome measures are increasingly used to measure patient status, impairments, and disability, but often require lengthy surveys and place a considerable burden on patients. We hypothesized that the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), composed of a single question, would be a valid and responsive instrument to provide a global assessment of hand function.

METHODS

The SANE, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Upper Extremity (PROMIS-UE), and Quick-Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) data are routinely collected electronically in our hand and upper-extremity center. To identify our cohort, we used Current Procedural Terminology codes to query our electronic medical record research data repository for the 7 most common hand surgery procedures performed over 2 years from December 2016 to 2018. These procedures included carpal tunnel release, trigger finger release, thumb carpometacarpal arthroplasty, wrist arthroscopy, distal radius fracture fixation, first dorsal compartment release, and cubital tunnel release. Patients undergoing a single isolated procedure with questionnaires obtained in the preoperative and/or postoperative period were included in the analysis. Convergent validity, coverage, and responsiveness for each instrument were assessed.

RESULTS

We identified 214 patients for inclusion. The SANE score had a moderate to strong correlation with the QuickDASH and PROMIS-UE. Floor and ceiling effects for the SANE were less than 10% at baseline and follow-up. Overall, the QuickDASH was the most responsive, followed by SANE and PROMIS-UE; all 3 instruments exceeded the acceptable thresholds for responsiveness and demonstrated significant changes before to after surgery. Responsiveness of the SANE varied by procedure and was acceptable for carpal tunnel release, carpometacarpal arthroplasty, wrist arthroscopy, and trigger finger release.

CONCLUSIONS

The single-item SANE is a reasonable measure of global function in patients undergoing common hand procedures and demonstrates psychometric properties comparable to those of the PROMIS-UE and QuickDASH outcome scores.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The SANE score is a reasonable outcome measure of global hand function that may have utility in demonstrating response to treatment in a practice setting and may provide a useful adjunct to multiple-item measures in clinical research studies.

What Are the Floor and Ceiling Effects of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Computer Adaptive Test Domains in Orthopaedic Patients? A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review to answer the following: (1) What are the floor and ceiling (F/C) effects of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computer adaptive test (CAT) domains of physical function (PF), upper extremity physical function (UE), pain interference (PI), and depression (D) in adult orthopaedic patients? (2) Do the PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-PI domains have differing F/C effects depending on use in upper extremity, lower extremity, spine, neck, and back, or trauma patients?.

METHODS

(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed, the review was registered on PROSPERO, and the methodological index for non-randomized studies was used for this systematic review. Studies reporting the F/C effects of at least 1 of 4 PROMIS CAT domains in orthopaedic patient cohorts accessed through PubMed and Embase on October 30, 2018, were included. F/C effects for each study were reported within forest plots.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies were included. Generally, varying cohorts demonstrated no F/C effects for PROMIS-PF (0%-9.0%), variable ceiling effects for PROMIS-UE (lower in v2.0; 0%-28.2%), variable floor effects for PROMIS-PI (0%-19.0%), and significant floor effects for PROMIS-D (0.4%-23.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

The orthopaedic literature demonstrated generally favorable floor and ceiling effects for PROMIS CAT domains, with the exception of variable ceiling effects for PROMIS-UE (the newer version exhibits only minor effects), variable floor effects for PROMIS-PI, and significant floor effects for PROMIS-D. In addition, the F/C effects of PROMIS-PF did not vary based on patient population. Although the floor effects of PROMIS-PI did vary based on patient population, the variability does not appear to be based solely on anatomic location. The PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-UE v2.0 demonstrate consistently low floor and ceiling effects. However, the PROMIS-PI and PROMIS-D may need modification before widespread adoption for clinical and research purposes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; systematic review of Level I-III studies.

Floor and Ceiling Effects, Time to Completion, and Question Burden of PROMIS CAT Domains Among Shoulder and Knee Patients Undergoing Nonoperative and Operative Treatment

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computer adaptive tests (CATs) have emerged as an efficient technique for measuring patient-reported outcomes among orthopaedic patients. The purpose of this study was to investigate the floor and ceiling (F/C) effects, time to completion (TTC), and question burden of PROMIS CATs administered to patients presenting to a shoulder and sports medicine orthopaedic clinic.