Minimal Clinically Important Difference After Carpal Tunnel Release Using the PROMIS Platform

Utilizing a learning health system to capture real-world patient data: Application of the reliable change index to evaluate and improve the outcome of a pain rehabilitation program

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The learning healthcare system (LHS) has been developed to integrate patients' clinical data into clinical decisions and improve treatment outcomes. Having little guidance on this integration process, we aim to explain (a) an applicable analytic tool for clinicians to evaluate the clinical outcomes at a group and an individual level and (b) our quality improvement (QI) project, analyzing the outcomes of a new outpatient pain rehabilitation program ("Back-in-Action": BIA) and applying the analysis results to modify our clinical practice.

METHODS

Through our LHS (CHOIR; https://choir.stanford.edu), we administered the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMIS)® before and after BIA. After searching for appropriate analytic tools, we decided to use the Reliable Change Index (RCI) to determine if an observed change in the direction of better (improvement) or worse (deterioration) would be beyond or within the measurement error (no change).

RESULTS

Our RCI calculations revealed that at least a 9-point decrease in the PCS scores and 10-point increase in the CPAQ scores would indicate reliable improvement. RCIs for the PROMIS measures ranged from 5 to 8 T-score points (i.e., 0.5-0.8 SD). When evaluating change scores of the PCS, CPAQ, and PROMIS measures, we found that 94% of patients showed improvement in at least one domain after BIA and 6% showed no reliable improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Our QI project revealed RCI as a useful tool to evaluate treatment outcomes at a group and an individual level, and RCI could be incorporated into the LHS to generate a progress report automatically for clinicians. We further explained how clinicians could use RCI results to modify a clinical practice, to improve the outcomes of a pain program, and to develop individualized care plans. Lastly, we suggested future research areas to improve the LHS application in pain practice.

Preliminary effectiveness and production time and costs of three-dimensional printed orthoses in chronic hand conditions: an interventional feasibility study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the preliminary effectiveness of three-dimensional printed orthoses compared with conventionally custom-fabricated orthoses in persons with chronic hand conditions on performance of daily activities, hand function, quality of life, satisfaction, and production time and costs.

DESIGN

Interventional feasibility study.

SUBJECTS

Chronic hand orthotic users (n = 21).

METHODS

Participants received a new three-dimensional printed orthosis according to the same type as their current orthosis, which served as the control condition. Primary outcome was performance of daily activities (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Upper Extremity; Michigan Hand Questionnaire). Secondary outcomes were hand function, quality of life, and satisfaction. Furthermore, production time and costs were recorded.

RESULTS

At 4 months' follow-up, no significant differences were found between three-dimensional printed orthoses and participants' existing conventional orthoses on activity performance, hand function, and quality of life. Satisfaction with the three-dimensional printed orthosis was significantly higher and the production time and costs for three-dimensional printed orthoses were significantly lower compared with conventional orthoses. The three-dimensional printed orthosis was preferred by 79% of the participants.

CONCLUSIONS

This feasibility study in chronic hand conditions suggests that three-dimensional printed orthoses are similar to conventional orthoses in terms of activity performance, hand function, and quality of life. Satisfaction, and production time and costs favoured the three-dimensional printed hand orthoses.

Responsiveness of the Brief Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Interference in the Context of Patient Mental Health

PURPOSE

A patient-reported outcomes measure (PROM) is responsive if it is sensitive to clinical status changes. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is used to indicate meaningful change, helpful in designing studies and adding context to some study results, and is related to instrument responsiveness. Our purpose was to provide MCID estimates for the brief Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (bMHQ) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) in a hand and upper extremity surgery cohort within the context of varying patient-reported mental health.

METHODS

Data were analyzed from 1,262 adult patients who received surgical care at a single center between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019. Patients completed PROMIS PI, PROMIS Global Health (including global mental health [GMH] component), bMHQ, and a pain-focused anchor question before each clinic visit. Data were collected 8 ± 2 weeks before and after surgery. A distribution-based MCID then was calculated for the general patient population, lowest 10th percentile of GMH scores, and top 10th percentile of GMH scores.

RESULTS

Minimal clinically important difference estimates were 10.4 for the bMHQ and 4.3 for PROMIS PI. Analysis of MCID across different GMH score groups showed a mean score of 11.5 for bMHQ for the lowest 10th percentile of GMH, 9.6 for bMHQ for the top 10th percentile, 4.5 for PI for the lowest 10th percentile, and 4.9 for PI for the top 10th percentile.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of subgroups stratified by preoperative patient-reported mental health condition found that preoperative mental health status, as indicated by GMH score, does not have a meaningful impact on responsiveness of bMHQ or PROMIS PI.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

A patient's reported mental health condition does not meaningfully change how these common PRO instruments reflect the patient condition after hand and upper extremity surgery.

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Electrodiagnostic Severity is Not Associated with PROMIS Upper Extremity, PROMIS Pain Interference and PROMIS Pain Intensity

Background: The primary objective of this study was to determine the association between preoperative electrodiagnostic study (EDS) parameters and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) instruments in patients with EDS-confirmed carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). Methods: A retrospective study of 45 patients with EDS-confirmed CTS was conducted. Patients completed the PROMIS Upper Extremity, PROMIS Pain Interference and PROMIS Pain Intensity. Explanatory variables included EDS disease severity (mild, moderate and severe), sensory peak latency, sensory amplitude, motor latency, motor amplitude, the presence of nonrecordable sensory latency and the presence of nonrecordable sensory amplitude. Explanatory variables also included patient-related factors, such as age, sex and diabetes mellitus. Associations between variables were assessed using simple linear regression, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Student's t-test. Results: In our cohort, the EDS severity was mild in 38%, moderate in 42% and severe in 20% of patients. The mean PROMIS Upper Extremity score was 44.4, the mean PROMIS Pain Interference score was 53.5 and the mean PROMIS Pain Intensity score was 49.9. Bivariate analysis demonstrated no association between EDS severity overall or any EDS parameter individually and PROMIS Upper Extremity, PROMIS Pain Interference and PROMIS Pain Intensity. Diabetes mellitus was associated with poorer PROMIS Upper Extremity scores. Conclusions: EDS severity is not associated with PROMIS Upper Extremity, PROMIS Pain Interference and PROMIS Pain Intensity. Carpal tunnel release is commonly indicated for pain and dysfunction, but validated measures of pain and dysfunction do not correlate with EDS severity. Level of Evidence: Level III (Diagnostic).

Intraoperative Conversion From Endoscopic to Open Carpal Tunnel Release: A Systematic Review and Case Series

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence, outcomes, and complications associated with conversion from endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) to open carpal tunnel release (OCTR).

METHODS

A retrospective case review of all patients who underwent ECTR over 4 years by 2 fellowship-trained hand surgeons at a single academic center was performed. We recorded outcomes and the reason for conversion in patients who underwent conversion to an OCTR. Baseline demographics and surgical complications were compared between the 2 groups. A systematic review was performed to define the incidence and reasons for conversion from ECTR to OCTR. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we included clinical studies of ECTR from 2000 to 2021.

RESULTS

In the retrospective series, 9 of 892 (1.02%) ECTR cases underwent conversion to an OCTR at the time of the index procedure. One of 9 converted cases had transient neurapraxia involving the recurrent motor branch after surgery compared with 0 cases in the group that underwent ECTR without conversion. Improvements in the visual analog scale for pain and QuickDASH were noted at a mean of 46 weeks after surgery in the group that underwent conversion to OCTR. The systematic review identified an incidence of conversion of 0.62%. The most common reasons for conversion to OCTR in the case series and systematic review were poor visualization due to hypertrophic tenosynovium and aberrant nerve anatomy.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall incidence of intraoperative conversion from ECTR to OCTR during the index procedure was 1.02%, with the most common reasons for conversion being poor visualization due to hypertrophic tenosynovium and aberrant nerve anatomy. Patients who undergo conversion from ECTR to OCTR demonstrate improvements in pain and disability, similar to patients who undergo ECTR without conversion.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic IV.

An Evaluation of Patient-reported Outcome Measures and Minimal Clinically Important Difference Usage in Hand Surgery

Background

This study was designed to examine the current use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) calculations in the hand surgery literature in an effort to standardize their use for research purposes.

Methods

A systematic review of the hand surgery literature was conducted. All nonshoulder upper extremity articles utilizing PROMs were compared between different journals, different surgical indications, and differing usage. MCID values were reported, and calculation methods assessed.

Results

In total, 4677 articles were reviewed, and 410 met the inclusion criteria of containing at least one PROM. Of the 410 articles reporting PROMs, 148 also mentioned an associated MCID. Of the articles that mentioned MCIDs, 14 calculated MCID values based on their specific clinical populations, whereas the remainder referenced prior studies. An estimated 35 different PROMs were reported in the study period; 95 different MCID values were referenced from 65 unique articles.

Conclusions

There are many different PROMs currently being used in hand surgery clinical reports. The reported MCIDs from their related PROMs are from multiple different sources and calculated by different methods. The lack of standardization in the hand surgery literature makes interpretation of studies utilizing PROMs difficult. There is a need for a standardized method of calculating MCID values and applying these values to established PROMs for nonshoulder upper extremity conditions.

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.

Operationalizing PROMs at the Musculoskeletal Practice and Policy Levels

There continues to be growing interest in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), especially as value-based healthcare initiatives gain more traction. Although it is well-established that PROMs can be useful in clinical research, how to operationalize PROMs in clinical care and policy initiatives remains a "work in progress." Following the design of a comprehensive PROM administration and routine collection system, orthopaedic surgeons and their patients can reap the benefits of PROMs in practice through improved shared clinical decision-making discussions at the individual patient level and closer symptom monitoring on a large scale, with improved resource allocation at the population health level. Although certain government and payer incentives exist to collect PROMs at present, it is reasonable to assume that future policy initiatives will begin to use the actual PROM scores to assess clinical outcomes. Orthopaedic surgeons with interest in this area should prioritize their involvement in policy discussion to ensure PROMs are being used appropriately in novel payment models and policy endeavors so that they are both evaluated and compensated fairly. Specifically, orthopaedic surgeons can help ensure appropriate risk adjustment of patients when this is being done. Undoubtedly, PROMs will only become a larger part of musculoskeletal care moving forward.

Responsiveness of PROMIS Instruments for Trigger Digit After Corticosteroid Injection or A1 Pulley Release

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to determine if the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) is sufficiently sensitive to detect improvement after 2 common treatments of trigger finger: corticosteroid injection or A1 pulley release.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 72 patients in the injection group and 51 in the A1 pulley release group. PROMIS physical function (PF), pain interference (PI), and upper extremity (UE) scores were collected at baseline and 6 weeks after injection for the injection group and at baseline, and 1 week, 6 weeks, and 3 months after surgery for A1 pulley release patients. Descriptive statistics and paired t tests were used to compare PROMIS scores within each cohort. Standardized response means (SRMs) were calculated for each PROMIS domain to gauge instrument responsiveness.

RESULTS

Average age was 62 years, 65% were female patients, and 86% were White for the steroid injection cohort, compared to 60 years, 71%, and 88%, respectively, for the A1 pulley release cohort. For the steroid injection group, mean PROMIS PI scores (-4.0 points; SRM = -0.6) and PROMIS UE scores (+3.3 points; SRM = 0.5) improved significantly at 6 weeks after injection compared to baseline. Meanwhile, A1 pulley release patients improved significantly in mean PI scores (-3.7 points; SRM = -0.5) and in UE scores (+4.9 points; SRM = 0.7) at 3 months after surgery compared to baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical improvements after trigger digit treatments are reflected in improved PROMIS PI and UE scores that reach previously accepted minimum clinically important difference values for hand patients. PROMIS PI and UE also are more responsive than PROMIS PF in capturing improvement for trigger digit treatments.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

As health care payers continue to emphasize patient-reported outcomes to determine treatment value and set reimbursement rates, this study helps establish that clinical improvement after trigger digit treatments are reflected in PROMIS PI and UE domains by reaching previously established minimum clinically important difference values for hand patients.

Natural History of Pediatric Hand and Wrist Ganglion Cysts: Longitudinal Follow-Up of a Prospective, Dual-Center Cohort

PURPOSE

This investigation describes the outcomes of pediatric ganglion cysts in a prospective cohort that elected not to undergo cyst aspiration or surgical treatment. Our primary aim was to investigate the rate of spontaneous resolution over time among the subset of patients who did not undergo specific treatments.

METHODS

Children (aged ≤18 years) who presented to the clinic with ganglion cysts of the hand or wrist were enrolled in a prospective two-center registry between 2017 and 2021. Enrolled subjects who never elected to undergo cyst aspiration or surgical treatment were analyzed. The data collected included age, sex, cyst location and laterality, hand dominance, Wong-Baker pain scale scores, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System upper-extremity scores. Follow-up surveys were completed for up to 5 years.

RESULTS

A total of 157 cysts in 154 children, with an average age of 9.4 years and a female-to-male ratio of 1.4:1, were eligible. The most common ganglion location was dorsal wrist (67/157, 42.7%), followed by volar wrist (49/157, 31.2%), the flexor tendon sheath (29/157, 18.5%), and the extensor tendon synovial lining (8/157, 5.1%). The average follow-up duration was 2.5 years after initial presentation to the clinic, and 63.1% (99/157) of the patients responded to follow-up surveys. Among them, 62.6% (62/99) of cysts spontaneously resolved; the resolution rates ranged from 51.9% of volar wrist ganglions to 81% of flexor tendon sheath cysts, with an average time to resolution of 14.1 months after cyst presentation. Cysts were more likely to resolve in the hand than in the wrist (84.0% vs 55.4%, respectively). Cysts present for >12 months at initial evaluation were less likely to resolve spontaneously (41.2% vs 67.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Of children who elected not to undergo aspiration or surgical treatment, approximately two-thirds of families reported that their child's ganglion cyst resolved spontaneously. Cysts that resolve spontaneously usually do so within 2 years of presentation.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic IV.

Older Patients Demonstrate PROMIS Outcomes Comparable to Younger Cohorts After Carpal Tunnel Release

BACKGROUND

The utility of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) in monitoring clinical progress after carpal tunnel release (CTR) in patients of different ages remains unknown. We sought to evaluate early PROMIS scores in elderly patients (ie, those aged ≥65 years) after CTR and compare those with all younger patients after CTR.

METHODS

Patients presenting to a single academic medical center for CTR between September 2018 and January 2020 completed PROMIS physical function (PF), pain interference (PI), and upper extremity (UE) computer adaptive tests and answered a single 5-point Likert-scale question evaluating subjective changes in their condition following CTR. Patients were divided into 3 age groups, and preoperative and postoperative PROMIS scores were compared.

RESULTS

In all, 214 patients fit inclusion criteria: 86 aged 18-54 years, 71 aged 55-64 years, and 57 aged ≥65 years. Subjective improvement was reported in 70.9% (n = 61), 84.5% (n = 60), and 71.9% (n = 41) of patients aged ≤54, 55-64, and ≥65 years, respectively. Patients aged ≤54 years showed significantly worse UE scores (P = .02), whereas those aged 55-64 years demonstrated significant worsening in all 3 PROMIS domains (P < .01). Patients aged ≥65 years who reported subjective improvement after CTR demonstrated significant improvement in PI scores (P = .03), whereas significant worsening of all PROMIS scores was observed in the subset of patients aged 55-64 years who reported subjective improvement (P < .01, .04, and .04 for PF, PI, and UE, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Younger patients showed worsening in PROMIS scores after CTR, whereas elderly patients did not show similar magnitude reductions in PROMIS scores. Moreover, the subset of elderly patients endorsing subjective improvement after CTR had reduced PI scores, consistent with less postoperative pain limitations.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement and Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Hand Surgeons

Patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) tools are used to evaluate health status and response to treatment and have been integral in the effort to improve the quality of care provided. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) have garnered additional attention since becoming a priority of the National Institutes of Health in the early part of this century, and their use in both clinical practice and research has subsequently increased. In the upper extremity, a variety of PRO instruments exist that can assist physicians in their ability to track and/or prognosticate outcomes, make comparisons between treatments as well as strengthen research methodologies, and help determine the value of care. A more complete interpretation of the clinical significance of patient-reported outcome measurements is informed by parameters such as minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit and patient acceptable symptom state.

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.

Minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) of upper extremity PROMIS scores in idiopathic adhesive capsulitis

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Testing v2.0 (UE), Pain Interference (P-Interference), and Pain Intensity (P-Intensity) in patients treated nonoperatively for idiopathic adhesive capsulitis (IAC).

METHODS

The anchor-based MCID, SCB, and PASS were calculated as the change in PROMIS scores representing the optimal cutoff for a ROC curve with an area under the curve (AUC) analysis. The distribution-based MCID was calculated as a range between the average standard error of measurement multiplied by two different constants: 1 and 2.77. Effect sizes and standardized response means (SRM) were calculated to assess the responsiveness of each PROMIS instrument while regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with achieving these thresholds.

RESULTS

This study enrolled 115 patients. The anchor-based MCID for PROMIS UE, P-Interference, and P-Intensity was 5.11, 4.16, and 8.16, respectively. The respective SCB was 8.44, 6.65, and 10.05. The respective PASS was 8.47, 7.01, and 10.41. The odds of achieving MCID values in adhesive capsulitis were negatively affected by gender (male), higher forward elevation at the time of presentation, higher pain scores (P-Interference), need for ≥ 2 corticosteroid injections, and a concomitant diagnosis of diabetes.

CONCLUSION

The MCID, SCB, and PASS parameters for PROMIS scores can be utilized to determine the clinical meaningfulness of patient-reported improvements in these instruments during the nonoperative treatment and as a research tool to compare the efficacy of new treatments for adhesive capsulitis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, basic science study, validation of outcome instruments. Key points • This is the first study to calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity and Pain instruments in patients with idiopathic adhesive capsulitis (IAC) of the shoulder.• This study determined the impact of symptom severity, demographics, and comorbidities on achieving the MCID, SCB, and PASS for PROMIS instruments in IAC patients treated nonoperatively.

Evaluation of Clinical Recovery After Surgical Treatment for Hand Ischemia From Vasospastic and Occlusive Disease Using PROMIS

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of literature describing the recovery trajectory after surgery for upper extremity ischemia. Using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF), Upper Extremity (UE), Pain Interference (PI), and Depression domains, we aimed to describe the postoperative recovery of such patients.

METHODS

We queried our PROMIS database for patients undergoing surgery for vasospastic or occlusive disease over a 4.5-year period. Inclusion criteria were preoperative, early (average 3 weeks) and late (average 6 months) postoperative PROMIS PF and/or UE, PI, and Depression scores. The change in PROMIS scores was calculated for each time point. Changes in PROMIS scores were compared with minimal clinically important difference estimates.

RESULTS

We identified 13 patients undergoing 13 surgical interventions that met inclusion criteria. More than one-half of our patients were men (n = 7 [54%]), and more than one-half of the surgeries (n = 7 [54%]) were for isolated occlusive diagnoses, with the remainder for vasospastic disease. At short-term postoperative follow-up, the change in PROMIS PF, UE, PI, and Depression scores was -6.34 (SD: 9.13), -6.81 (SD: 9.61), 3.16 (SD: 5.78), and -3.05 (SD: 8.37), respectively. At mid-term postoperative follow-up, the change in PROMIS PF, UE, PI, and Depression scores was 4.45 (SD: 10.33), 8.04 (SD: 13.84), -7.03 (SD: 7.06), and -12.27 (SD: 10.85), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest patients undergoing surgical treatment for upper extremity ischemia experience a worsening of functional symptoms initially, as expected, followed by notable improvement.

Cross-Sectional Area of the Median Nerve as a Prognostic Indicator in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Treated With Local Steroid Injection

PURPOSE

Local steroid injection is an effective treatment modality for carpal tunnel syndrome. This study aimed to investigate the success rate of ultrasonography-guided local steroid injection and determine the prognostic value of the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the median nerve for steroid injection.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 40 patients with carpal tunnel syndrome whose median nerve CSA was >15 mm² (large-CSA group; n = 16) or ≤15 mm² (small-CSA group; n = 24). The CSA was measured using ultrasonography, and all the patients were treated with ultrasonography-guided corticosteroid injection. Demographic characteristics, symptoms, initial QuickDASH score, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaires, and results of the nerve conduction study were assessed at baseline. Treatment success was defined in this study as the absence of symptom recurrence within the entire follow-up period.

RESULTS

The treatment success rate was 45% (n = 18) after an average follow-up of 16 months. Overall, 11 patients (28%) underwent carpal tunnel release on an average of 11 months after steroid injection. The large-CSA group showed a significantly worse grade of electrodiagnostic testing at baseline than did the small-CSA group; however, there was no significant difference in final Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaires symptom score (1.7 vs 1.8, respectively) and the rate of continued treatment success at the last follow-up (42% vs 50%, respectively). The proportions of patients who required carpal tunnel decompression were 29% and 25% in the small-CSA and large-CSA groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Local steroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome has an overall success rate of 45% after a mean follow-up of 16 months. Preinjection CSA was not associated with whether the steroid injection was considered successful. This indicates that increased median nerve CSA does not preclude the possibility of symptomatic relief after a local steroid injection.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic IV.

Factors Influencing Why Children and Their Families Choose Surgery for Ganglion Cysts

PURPOSE

Ganglion cysts of the hand/wrist are frequently managed without surgery but can be treated with surgical excision if there is pain or dysfunction. No studies have examined the specific factors predictive of surgical treatment for pediatric patients.

METHODS

This was a study of pediatric patients (≤18 years) with ganglion cysts of the hand/wrist seen between 2017 and 2019 at 2 institutions. Baseline demographic data were collected in addition to cyst characteristics, Wong-Baker pain scores, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scores (pain, depression, upper extremity function, anxiety). Multivariable regression was used to determine the factors predictive of surgical intervention at ≥6 months of eligible follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 167 patients with a mean age of 10.1 ± 5.3 years were included for analysis. Forty-three (25.7%) underwent surgical excision of their ganglion cyst at means of 2.3 months after the initial visit and 12.6 months after cyst appearance. Sex and cyst location were similar between cohorts. Surgical patients were older (12.1 vs 9.4 years, respectively) and presented to the clinic later after an appearance (10.9 vs 6.5 months, respectively) compared to nonsurgical patients. Surgical patients also had higher pain scores at presentation (median, 3 vs 0, respectively). Cysts receiving surgery were larger than those without surgery (81.4% vs 55.3% >1 cm, respectively). Pain interference Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scores were higher in the surgical than the nonsurgical group (45.2 vs 39.6, respectively). In a multivariable analysis, pain scores ≥4 (odds ratio, 3.4) were predictive of surgery for patients ≥3 years, whereas older age (odds ratio, 1.1) and a cyst size >1 cm (odds ratio, 3.3) predicted surgery across all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric patients with ganglion cysts who initially present at older ages with moderate/severe pain scores and larger cysts are more likely to ultimately choose surgical excision. Surgeons may observe a preference for earlier surgery in this subset of patients.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic II.

Bringing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Into Practice: A Review of the Latest Developments in PROM Use in the Evaluation and Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

As health care systems globally shift toward optimizing value, defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent across a full cycle of care, there has been increasing focus on using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to gauge success. Patient-reported outcome measures are validated questionnaires that allow patients to share their health status across several domains (eg, pain or physical function). This trend has been particularly notable in hand surgery, with PROM use investigated for many common hand conditions, including carpal tunnel syndrome, Dupuytren contracture, trigger finger, osteoarthritis, and wrist ganglion. The purpose of this article is to review recent developments in the use of PROM instruments, including the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire; Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand; and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, for the evaluation and treatment of patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. The considerable progress in establishing PROMs for use in carpal tunnel syndrome is reviewed, and future improvements are proposed to standardize PROM use and bring PROMs into day-to-day clinical practice for individualized patient treatment decision-making and counseling.

Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Substantial Clinical Benefit for the Pain Visual Analog Scale in a Postoperative Hand Surgery Population

PURPOSE

Although the pain visual analog scale (VAS-pain) is a ubiquitous patient-reported outcome instrument, it remains unclear how to interpret changes or differences in scores. Therefore, our purpose was to calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for the VAS-pain instrument in a nonshoulder hand and upper extremity postoperative population.

METHODS

Adult postoperative patients treated by 1 of 5 fellowship-trained orthopedic hand surgeons at a single tertiary academic medical center were identified. Inclusion required VAS-pain scores at baseline (up to 3 months before surgery) and follow-up (up to 4 months after surgery), in addition to a response to a pain-specific anchor question at follow-up. The MCID estimates were calculated with (1) the 1/2 standard deviation method; and (2) an anchor-based approach. The SCB estimates were calculated with (1) an anchor-based approach; and (2) a receiver operator curve method that maximized the sensitivity and specificity for detecting a "much improved" pain status.

RESULTS

There were 667 and 148 total patients included in the MCID and SCB analyses, respectively. The 1/2 standard deviation MCID estimate was 1.6, and the anchor-based estimate was 1.9. The anchor-based SCB estimate was 2.2. The receiver operator curve analysis yielded an SCB estimate of 2.6, with an area under the curve of 0.72, consistent with acceptable discrimination.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose MCID values in the range of 1.6 to 1.9 and SCB values in the range of 2.2 to 2.6 for the VAS-pain instrument in a nonshoulder hand and upper extremity postoperative population.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

These MCID and SCB estimates may be useful for powering clinical studies and when interpreting VAS-pain score changes or differences reported in the hand surgery literature. These values are to be applied at a population level, and should not be applied to assess the improvement, or lack thereof, for individual patients.

Shared Decision-Making Tool for Opioid Prescribing After Ambulatory Orthopedic Surgery in Veterans: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Purpose

We examined whether an educational, shared-decision-making tool designed to empower patients, individualize pain management, and maximize use of nonopioid, over-the-counter analgesics reduces opioid use and waste while maintaining adequate pain relief.

Methods

We developed an educational, shared-decision-making tool regarding postoperative pain medication for outpatient hand surgery. Patients randomized to groups with and without the tool were surveyed for 4 weeks after surgery. Survey variables included Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System pain intensity and pain interference scores, as well as the number of oxycodone or over-the-counter pills taken. Results were compared using chi-squared, Wilcoxon rank-sum, and Welch’s t tests.

Results

Fifty-three patients participated: 25 in the shared-tool group and 28 in the no-tool group. The mean age was 60 years, with more women in the no-tool group than the shared-tool group (n =17 versus 11, respectively). The shared-tool group averaged 6.4 prescribed oxycodone pills, versus 10 for the no-tool group (P < .01). The median numbers of oxycodone pills taken the first week after surgery were 2 (interquartile range, 6) for the shared-tool group and 3 (interquartile range, 6) for the no-tool group (P = .97). Patient-reported outcome measures for pain intensity and pain interference were not significantly different for weeks 1, 3, and 4 after surgery. Pain interference was significantly lower in week 2 in the shared-tool group (difference, −4.4; 95% confidence interval, −8.57 to −0.30; P = .04).

Conclusions

The shared-tool group had equivalent or better pain control and were prescribed a lower number of opioid pain pills than the no-tool group. Both groups used nonopioid medications, with no difference in the types of over-the-counter medications used. Shared decision-making strategies could be applied to other outpatient orthopedic surgical settings, and may reduce the amount of opioids prescribed without compromising pain control.

Type of study/level of evidence

Therapeutic II.

Depression and Anxiety Screening Identifies Patients That may Benefit From Treatment Regardless of Existing Diagnoses

Background

This study investigated the utility of depression and anxiety symptom screening in patients scheduled for total knee arthroplasty to examine differences in active symptoms according to patients' mental health diagnoses and associated prescription medications.

Material and methods

This cross-sectional study analyzed 594 patients scheduled for total knee arthroplasty at a tertiary practice between June 2018 and December 2018. Patients completed Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurements Information System (PROMIS) Depression and Anxiety Computerized Adaptive Tests in clinic quantifying active symptoms. Mental health diagnoses and associated medications were extracted from health records. Statistical analysis assessed between-group differences in mean PROMIS scores and the prevalence of heightened depressive and anxiety symptoms.

Results

Multivariable linear regression modeling demonstrated that being diagnosed with depression without medication (β 7.1; P < .001) and with medication (β 8.6; P < .001) were each associated with higher PROMIS Depression scores. Similar modeling demonstrated that patients diagnosed with anxiety and prescribed an anxiolytic (β 8.4; P < .001) were associated with higher PROMIS Anxiety scores than undiagnosed patients. Eighty-six (15%) patients experienced heightened anxiety and/or depressive symptoms. Heightened depressive symptoms were more prevalent among those diagnosed with depression (19% without medication, 24% with antidepressant vs 5% undiagnosed: P < .001). Heightened anxiety symptoms were most prevalent among those diagnosed with anxiety and on anxiolytic medication (25% vs 7% diagnosed with anxiety without medication, 8% undiagnosed: P < .001).

Conclusion

One in seven arthroplasty patients screened reported heightened depressive and/or anxiety symptoms. Despite the majority of arthroplasty patients on antidepressants and anxiolytics having symptoms controlled, these patients remain at increased risk of heightened active symptoms.

Time to Stop Routinely Prescribing Opiates after Carpal Tunnel Release

BACKGROUND

North American surgeons continue to routinely order narcotic medication for postoperative pain relief after carpal tunnel surgery. For some patients, this instigates persistent use. This double-blind, multicenter trial investigated whether over-the-counter medications were inferior to opioid pain control after carpal tunnel release.

METHODS

Patients undergoing carpal tunnel release in five centers in Canada and the United States (n = 347) were randomly assigned to postoperative pain control with (opioid) hydrocodone/acetaminophen 5/325 mg versus over-the-counter ibuprofen/acetaminophen 600/325 mg. The two primary outcome measures were the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (0 to 10) and the six-item Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Pain Interference T-score. Secondary outcome measures were total medication used and overall satisfaction with pain medication management.

RESULTS

The authors found no significant differences between opioid and over-the-counter patients in the Numeric Pain Rating Scale scores, Pain Interference T-scores, number of doses of medication, or patient satisfaction. The highest Numeric Pain Rating Scale group difference was the night of surgery, when opiate patients had 0.9/10 more pain than over-the-counter patients. The highest group difference in Pain Interference T-scores (2.1) was on the day of surgery, when the opiate patients had more pain interference than the over-the-counter group. Patient nationality or sex did not generate significant pain score differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain management is not inferior for patients managed with over-the-counter acetaminophen/ibuprofen versus opioids. This study provides high-quality evidence that U.S. and Canadian surgeons should stop the routine prescription of narcotics after carpal tunnel surgery for patients who are not taking pain medicines daily before surgery.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, II.

Clinical Presentation and Characteristics of Hand and Wrist Ganglion Cysts in Children

PURPOSE

Ganglion cysts are the most common mass of the hand or wrist. In adults, ganglions have a female predilection and are commonly located in the dorsal wrist. However, their presentation in children has not been well reported. This investigation sought to describe the presentation of pediatric ganglion cysts in a prospective cohort.

METHODS

A multicenter prospective investigation of children (aged ≤18 years) who presented with ganglion cysts of the hand or wrist was conducted between 2017 and 2019. The data collected included age, sex, cyst location, hand dominance, pain, and patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) scores for upper-extremity (UE) function. The patients were divided into cohorts based on age, cyst location, and cyst size. Multivariable analyses were performed to identify factors predictive of worse UE function and higher pain scores.

RESULTS

A total of 173 patients with a mean age of 10.1 ± 5.3 years and female-to-male ratio of 1.4:1 were enrolled. The dorsal wrist was the most commonly affected (49.7%), followed by the volar wrist (26.6%) and flexor tendon sheath (18.5%). In older patients, dorsal wrist ganglions were more common than tendon sheath cysts (11.9 ± 4.1 years vs 6.2 ± 5.8 years) and were larger (86.7% were >1 cm) than cysts in other locations (34.5% were >1 cm). Patients aged >10 years reported higher pain scores, with 21.5% of older patients reporting moderate/severe pain scores versus 5.0% of younger children. This cohort of patients had an average PROMIS UE function score of 47.4 ± 9.5, and lower PROMIS scores were associated with higher pain scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Ganglions in pediatric populations, which most commonly affect the dorsal wrist, demonstrate a female predilection. In younger children, cysts are smaller and more often involve the volar wrist or flexor tendon sheath. Older children report higher pain scores. Pediatric ganglion cysts do not appear to result in a clinically meaningful decrease in UE function.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic II.

The minimal clinically important difference of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function and upper extremity computer adaptive tests and QuickDASH in the setting of elbow trauma

Background

Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) estimates are useful for gauging clinical relevance when interpreting changes or differences in patient-reported outcomes scores. These values are lacking in the setting of elbow trauma. Our primary purpose was to estimate the MCID of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF) computer adaptive test (CAT), the PROMIS upper extremity (UE) CAT, and the QuickDASH using an anchor-based approach for patients recovering from elbow trauma and related surgeries. Secondarily, we aimed to estimate the MCID using the 1/2 standard deviation method.

Materials & methods

Adult patients undergoing treatment for isolated elbow injuries between July 2014 and April 2020 were identified at a single tertiary academic medical center. Outcomes, including the PROMIS PF CAT v1.2/2.0, PROMIS UE CAT v1.2, and QuickDASH, were collected via a tablet computer. For inclusion, baseline (6 months before injury up to 11 days postoperatively or after injury) and follow-up (11 to 150 days postoperative or after injury) PF or UE CAT scores were required, as well as a response to an anchor question querying improvement in physical function. The MCID was calculated using (1) an anchor-based approach using the difference in mean score change between anchor groups reporting “No change” and “Slightly Improved/Improved” and (2) the 1/2 standard deviation method.

Results

Of the 146 included patients, the mean age was 46 ± 18 years and 67 (46%) were women. Most patients (129 of 146 or 88%) were recovering from surgery, and the remaining 12% were recovering from nonoperatively managed fractures and/or dislocations. The mean follow-up was 157 ± 192 days. Scores for each instrument improved significantly between baseline and follow-up. Anchor-based MCID values were calculated as follows: 5.7, 4.6, and 5.3 for the PROMIS PF CAT, PROMIS UE CAT, and QuickDASH, respectively. MCID values estimated using the 1/2 standard deviation method were 4.3, 4.8, and 11.7 for the PROMIS PF CAT, PROMIS UE CAT, and QuickDASH, respectively.

Conclusions

In the setting of elbow trauma, we propose MCID ranges of 4.3 to 5.7 for the PROMIS PF CAT, 4.6 to 4.8 for the PROMIS UE CAT, and 5.3 to 11.7 for the QuickDASH. These values will provide a framework for clinical relevance when interpreting clinical outcomes studies, or powering clinical trials, for populations recovering from trauma.

Establishing clinically significant outcomes of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity questionnaire after primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS

Since its introduction, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity (PROMIS UE) assessment has been increasingly used in shoulder arthroplasty outcome measurement. However, determination of clinically significant outcomes using the PROMIS UE has yet to be investigated following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). We hypothesized that we could establish clinically significant outcomes of the PROMIS UE outcome assessment in patients undergoing primary RTSA and identify significant baseline patient factors associated with achievement of these measures.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing primary RTSA between 2018 and 2019 who received preoperative baseline and follow-up PROMIS UE assessments at 12 months after surgery were retrospectively reviewed. Domain-specific anchor questions pertaining to pain and function assessed at 12 months after surgery were used to determine minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) values for the PROMIS UE using receiver operating characteristic curve and area-under-the-curve (AUC) analysis. Univariate logistic regression analysis was then performed to identify significant patient factors associated with achieving the MCID, SCB, or PASS.

RESULTS

A total of 95 patients met all inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. By use of an anchor-based method, the PASS value was 36.68 (sensitivity, 0.795; specificity, 0.765; AUC, 0.793) and the SCB value was 11.62 (sensitivity, 0.597; specificity, 1.00; AUC, 0.806). By use of a distribution-based method, the MCID value was calculated to be 4.27. Higher preoperative PROMIS UE scores were a positive predictor in achievement of the PASS (odds ratio [OR], 1.107; P = .05), whereas lower preoperative PROMIS UE scores were associated with obtaining SCB (OR, 0.787; P < .001). Greater baseline forward flexion was negatively associated with achievement of the PASS (OR, 0.986; P = .033) and MCID (OR, 0.976, P = .013). Of the patients, 83.2%, 69.5%, and 47.4% achieved the MCID, PASS, and SCB, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study defines the MCID, SCB, and PASS for the PROMIS UE outcome assessment in patients undergoing primary RTSA, of whom the majority achieved meaningful outcome improvement at 12 months after surgery. These values may be used in assessing the outcomes and extent of functional improvement following RTSA.

Early Outcomes of Endoscopic Versus Open Carpal Tunnel Release

PURPOSE

To compare the short-term outcomes of endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) and open carpal tunnel release (OCTR), including patient-reported outcomes, pain and satisfaction scores, return to work, and postoperative prescription pain medication use.

METHODS

We included all patients over 18 years of age undergoing carpal tunnel release at a single hand center between January 2018 and December 2019. The carpal tunnel release method was driven by variations in surgeon practice. Data from patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) questionnaires and brief Michigan hand outcomes questionnaires and data on patient-reported pain levels, satisfaction with care, return to work, and postoperative prescription pain medication use were collected at preoperative visits and the first follow-up visit between postoperative days 7 and 14.

RESULTS

We included 678 (586 ECTR and 92 OCTR) patients. The median age was 58 years, and 75% of the patients were women. At early follow up, patients who underwent OCTR reported significantly lower postoperative PROMIS upper-extremity scores than those who underwent ECTR (median, 32 vs 36 points, respectively) but similar postoperative PROMIS pain interference, global physical health, global mental health, and brief Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire scores. The postoperative pain and satisfaction scores were similar between the 2 groups. In multivariable models, patients who underwent OCTR had 62% lower odds of returning to work and 30% greater odds of remaining on a postoperative pain prescription at the first follow-up visit.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found no evidence suggesting the definitive superiority of 1 surgical technique with regard to clinical outcomes in the early postoperative period. However, OCTR was associated with lower postoperative PROMIS upper-extremity scores of unclear clinical significance, higher odds of remaining on pain medication, and lower odds of returning to work by the first postoperative visit. Endoscopic carpal tunnel release may be preferred in patients who need to return to work within the first 2 weeks after the procedure.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic IV.

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.

Minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state of PROMIS upper extremity after total shoulder arthroplasty

Background

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System minimal clinically important difference (PROMIS MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) of patient-reported outcome measures provide clinical significance to patient-reported outcome measures scores. The goal of this study is to measure the MCID, SCB, and PASS of PROMIS Upper Extremity v2.0 (PROMIS UE) in patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA).

Methods

All patients who underwent TSA since October 2017 were identified from our institutional database. Patients who had completed the PROMIS UE outcome measure before surgery were asked to complete a PROMIS UE and anchor survey that contained two transition questions to assess patient satisfaction and change in symptoms since treatment. The anchor-based MCID, SCB, and PASS were calculated as the change in PROMIS UE score that represented the optimal cutoff for a receiver operating characteristic curve. The distribution-based MCID was calculated as a range between the average standard error of measurement multiplied by 2 different constants: 1 and 2.77.

Results

This study enrolled 165 patients. The anchor-based MCID for PROMIS UE was calculated to be 8.05 with an AUC of 0.814. The anchor-based SCB was calculated to be 10.0 with an AUC of 0.727. The distribution-based MCID was calculated to be between 3.12 and 8.65. The PASS was calculated to be 37.2 with an AUC of 0.90.

Conclusions

The establishment of MCID, SCB, and PASS for PROMIS UE scores after shoulder arthroplasty provides meaningful and objective clinical interpretation of the improvements in outcome scores after TSA.

Outcome of carpal tunnel release in patients with normal nerve conduction studies

BACKGROUND

We evaluated outcome after carpal tunnel release (CTR) in patients with clinically diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) but normal results in nerve conduction studies (NCS), and compared these results with those from a prospective group of patients with NCS-verified CTS.

METHODS

Over a 5-year period, we prospectively included 103 patients with clinical CTS. NCS were done at inclusion, with surgeon and patient being kept blind regarding the result. The patients underwent endoscopic CTR. QuickDASH and satisfaction score were recorded preoperatively and 4 months after surgery. 94 patients, 47 of whom had NCS-verified CTS, completed the study.

RESULTS

A significant improvement in QuickDASH score (18 and 20 points respectively, p < 0.01) was found for both groups. Satisfaction score was significantly higher in the group with NCS-verified CTS. However, the overall satisfaction rates were 87% in the normal NCS group and 95% in the group with abnormal NCS.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical outcome after CTR in patients with normal NCS was favourable and similar to that obtained in patients with NCS-verified CTS. Nonetheless, patients with normal result in NCS gave a lower satisfaction score.

Establishing Age-calibrated Normative PROMIS Scores for Hand and Upper Extremity Clinic

The purpose of our study is to investigate differences in normative PROMIS upper extremity function (PROMIS-UE), physical function (PROMIS-PF), and pain interference (PROMIS-PI) scores across age cohorts in individuals without upper extremity disability.

Customizing CAT Administration of the PROMIS Misuse of Prescription Pain Medication Item Bank for Patients with Chronic Pain

OBJECTIVE

The 22-item PROMIS®-Rx Pain Medication Misuse item bank (Bank-22) imposes a high response burden. This study aimed to characterize the performance of the Bank-22 in a computer adaptive testing (CAT) setting based on varied stopping rules.

METHODS

The 22 items were administered to 288 patients. We performed a CAT simulation using default stopping rules (CATPROMIS). In 5 other simulations, a "best health" response rule was added to decrease response burden. This rule stopped CAT administration when a participant selected "never" to a specified number of initial Bank-22 items (2-6 in this study, designated CATAlt2-Alt6). The Bank-22 and 7-item short form (SF-7) scores were compared to scores based on CATPROMIS, and the 5 CAT variations.

RESULTS

Bank-22 scores correlated highly with the SF-7 and CATPROMIS, Alt5, Alt6 scores (r=0.87-0.95) and moderately with CATAlt2- Alt4 scores (r=0.63-0.74). In all CAT conditions, the greatest differences with Bank-22 scores were at the lower end of misuse T-scores. The smallest differences with Bank-22 and CATPROMIS scores were observed with CATAlt5 and CATAlt6. Compared to the SF-7, CATAlt5 and CATAlt6 reduced overall response burden by about 42%. Finally, the correlations between PROMIS-Rx Misuse and Anxiety T-scores remained relatively unchanged across the conditions (r=0.31-0.43, Ps < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Applying a stopping rule based on number of initial "best health" responses reduced response burden for respondents with lower levels of misuse. The tradeoff was less measurement precision for those individuals, which could be an acceptable tradeoff when the chief concern is in discriminating higher levels of misuse.

Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation Correlates with American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score for Common Elbow Pathology: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

There are currently a variety of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for elbow pathology, without any established gold standard. The Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) is a single question assessment of the patient's perceived overall function compared with normal. The SANE score has been correlated with PROs from the shoulder and knee literature.

PURPOSE

To correlate the SANE score for a variety of elbow pathologies with a traditionally reported elbow outcome measure, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons-Elbow score (ASES-E).

STUDY DESIGN

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

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of all patients identified at a single center between April 2016 and January 2019 who presented as a new patient with elbow pathology. All patients prospectively completed the ASES-E along with the SANE score for elbow (SANE-E) at the time of initial consultation. Spearman correlations (r) were performed to evaluate the correlation between the ASES-E and the SANE-E score for specific elbow pathology, along with descriptive data such as age, sex, and chronicity of the problem.

RESULTS

A total of 555 patients (166 women, 29.9%) with a mean ± SD age of 51.0 ± 11.7 years with the diagnoses of medial epicondylitis (n = 72; 13.0%), lateral epicondylitis (n = 224; 40.4%), biceps tendon rupture (n = 139; 25.0%), triceps tendon rupture (n = 21; 3.8%), and elbow arthritis (n = 99; 17.8%) were included in this analysis. There was moderate correlation between the SANE-E and the ASES-E (r = 0.623; P < .001), with strongest correlation with the visual analog scale (VAS) (r = -0.518; P < .001) compared with any individual question and moderate to strong correlations based on specific diagnoses. SANE-E and ASES-E scores for the entire cohort were 42.9 ± 26.7 and 56.9 ± 21.4, respectively (P < .001). Age (r = 0.027; P = .526), sex (r = 0.026; P = .555), VAS (r = -0.106; P = .013), and chronicity of the problem (r = -0.037; P = .384) were not found to be correlated with differences in ASES-E and SANE-E.

CONCLUSION

The SANE-E score is a simple way to assess patient-perceived function relative to normal. The findings of this study demonstrated moderate to strong correlation between the ASES-E and the SANE-E score for a variety of commonly encountered elbow conditions.

Determining the Minimally Important Change of the Michigan Hand outcomes Questionnaire in patients undergoing trigger finger release

INTRODUCTION

The Michigan Hand outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) is a widely used instrument to evaluate treatment results for hand conditions. Establishing the Minimally Important Change (MIC) is essential for interpreting change in outcome that is clinically relevant.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study was to determine the MIC of the MHQ total and subscale scores in patients undergoing trigger finger release.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a prospective cohort study conducted between December 2011 and February 2020.

METHODS

Patients completed the MHQ prior to surgery and 3 months postoperatively. The MIC of the MHQ was determined using 5 anchor-based methods (ie, 2 anchor mean change methods and 3 receiver operating characteristic methods). The median MIC value was determined to represent the triangulated MIC.

RESULTS

A total of 1814 patients were included. The MIC for the MHQ total score ranged from 7.7 to 10.9, with a triangulated estimate of 9.3. The MIC estimates for 5 of 6 of the MHQ subscales ranged from 7.7 to 20.0. No MICs could be determined for the MHQ subscale "aesthetics" due to low correlations between the anchor questions and MHQ change scores.

CONCLUSIONS

These MIC estimates can contribute to the interpretation of clinical outcomes following trigger finger release and for assessment of power in prospective trials.

Risk Factors for Failed Nonsurgical Treatment Resulting in Surgery on Thumb Carpometacarpal Arthritis

PURPOSE

The thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) joint is the second most common site of osteoarthritis in the hand, yet reported symptoms and ultimate treatment decisions are not simply a function of radiographic appearance. This study aimed to determine the patient- and/or disease-related factors associated with patients undergoing surgical treatment of thumb CMC arthritis.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed 1,994 patients with thumb CMC arthritis treated at 2 institutions between February 2015 and November 2018. Patient demographic and clinical information was obtained from medical records to characterize treatment modalities before hand surgeon evaluation, mental and physical comorbidities, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System assessments. After bivariate analysis, a multivariable logistic regression model evaluated factors associated with undergoing thumb CMC surgery.

RESULTS

This cohort was predominately female (70%) and white (91%), mean age at first appointment, 62 ± 10 years. A total of 170 patients underwent surgery for thumb CMC arthritis (9%) at a median of 114 days (interquartile range, 27-328) after the first visit. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Depression scores correlated with Pain Interference and Physical Function scores. A history of diagnosed depression or anxiety was associated with less perceived Physical Function at presentation. However, only prior contralateral thumb CMC surgery, younger patient age, and treating institution were associated with undergoing surgery in regression modeling.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain and functional limitations associated with thumb CMC arthritis are influenced by mental health comorbidities, but these factors do not predict surgical treatment. Instead, patients' prior surgical experience and surgeon attitudes toward thumb CMC arthritis appear to have a strong influence on the odds of patients undergoing surgery for thumb CMC arthritis.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic IV.

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.

Evaluation of PROMIS' Ability to Detect Immediate Postoperative Symptom Improvement Following Carpal Tunnel Release

PURPOSE

We sought to determine whether subjective clinical improvement immediately after carpal tunnel release (CTR) was captured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity (UE), Physical Function (PF), Pain Interference (PI), and Depression.

METHODS

Between September 2018 and January 2020, patients presenting to a single academic medical center hand clinic were asked to complete PROMIS UE, PF, PI, and Depression computer adaptive tests. In addition, patients who had CTR were asked to answer the following at their first postoperative clinic visit: "Since my last clinic visit, my condition is: (1) much better; (2) mildly better; (3) no change; (4) mildly worse; (5) much worse." For each patient, the last clinic visit was the final preoperative visit. The PROMIS domain scores were compared before and after surgery using paired t tests. The percentage of patients subjectively reporting better symptoms was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients fit our inclusion criteria. The average number of days between the final preoperative visit and CTR was 7 (range, 0-30), and the average number of days between CTR and the first postoperative visit was 9 (range, 3-21). A total of 116 patients (74%) reported their carpal tunnel syndrome was better at their first postoperative visit. However, PROMIS UE, PF, and PI scores were significantly worse at the first postoperative visit, although not at clinically appreciable levels. There was no statistical or clinical difference in PROMIS Depression scores from pre- to postoperative time points.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 75% of patients subjectively report their carpal tunnel syndrome is better at their first follow-up visit within 3 weeks of CTR; however, PROMIS does not capture this improvement.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Hand surgeons evaluating patients shortly following CTR should be aware of the potential limitation of PROMIS to accurately capture immediate postoperative clinical outcomes. Disease-specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measures, such as the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire, may be preferred during this immediate postoperative timeframe.

Impact of Insurance Type on Self-Reported Symptom Severity at the Preoperative Visit for Carpal Tunnel Release

PURPOSE

Prior studies evaluated the impact of insurance type on access to hand care. However, there is limited literature quantifying whether patient symptoms are worse at the time of intervention. Our primary null hypothesis was that insurance type would not be associated with Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System (PROMIS) Upper-Extremity (UE), Physical Function (PF), Pain Interference (PI), and Depression scores at the preoperative visit before carpal tunnel release (CTR).

METHODS

Between December 2016 and November 2018, patients with known carpal tunnel syndrome presenting to a tertiary academic hand clinic for the preoperative visit within 3 months of CTR, completed PROMIS UE, PF, PI, and Depression computer adaptive tests. Patient characteristics were recorded, including insurance type as commercial, Medicare, Medicaid, or workers' compensation. Multivariable linear regression was used to determine which variables were associated with PROMIS scores at the preoperative visit before CTR.

RESULTS

A total of 301 patients were included in the analysis. All PROMIS domains were significantly different by insurance type; Medicaid patients had the worst preoperative score for all domains in bivariate analysis. In multivariable linear regression modeling, commercial insurance was associated with better preoperative PROMIS UE, PF, PI, and Depression scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Commercial insurance is associated with significantly better preoperative PROMIS PF, PI, and Depression scores compared with other insurance types (ie, Medicaid, Medicare, and Workers' compensation). This may be the result of a number of factors, including differences in access to hand care or life circumstances that allow for only certain individuals to seek hand care early on in the disease process. However, further research is warranted to determine more definitively why this association exists.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic II.

Relevance of Diagnosed Depression and Antidepressants to PROMIS Depression Scores Among Hand Surgical Patients

PURPOSE

We aimed to test the utility of screening for depressive symptoms in the hand surgical office focusing on chances of heightened depressive symptoms in patients with no history of diagnosed depression and by quantifying ongoing depressive symptoms among patients diagnosed with depression accounting for antidepressant use. The clinical importance of this study was predicated on the documented negative association between depressive symptoms and hand surgical outcomes.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study analyzed 351 patients presenting to a tertiary hand center between April 21, 2016, and November 22, 2017. Adult patients completed self-administered Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Depression computer adaptive tests at registration. Health records were examined for a past medical history of diagnosed depression and whether patients reported current use of prescription antidepressants. Mean PROMIS Depression scores were compared by analysis of variance (groups: no diagnosed depression, depression without medication, depression with medication). Four points represented a clinically relevant difference in PROMIS Depression scores between groups and Depression scores greater than 59.9 were categorized as having heightened depressive symptoms.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients (18%) had been diagnosed with depression. Thirty-four of these patients (55%) reported taking antidepressant medications. The PROMIS Depression scores indicated greater current depressive symptoms among patients with a history of diagnosed depression when not taking antidepressants (11 points worse than unaffected) and also among patients taking antidepressants (7 points worse than unaffected). Heightened depressive symptoms were detected in all groups but were more prevalent among those diagnosed with depression (36% with no medication, 29% with antidepressant medication) compared with unaffected patients (7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Depression screening for heightened depressive symptoms identifies 1 in 14 patients without diagnosed depression and 1 in 3 patients diagnosed with depression as having currently heightened depressive symptoms. Hand surgeons can use PROMIS Depression screening in all patients and using this to guide referrals for depression treatment to ameliorate one confounder of hand surgical outcomes.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Symptom prevalence study II.

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.

Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State, and Substantial Clinical Benefit of the PROMIS Upper Extremity Questionnaire After Rotator Cuff Repair

BACKGROUND

The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Upper Extremity (PROMIS UE) questionnaire has been validated as an effective and efficient outcome measure after rotator cuff repair (RCR). However, definitions of clinically significant outcomes used in interpreting this outcome measure have yet to be defined.

PURPOSE

To define clinically significant outcomes of the PROMIS UE questionnaire in patients undergoing arthroscopic RCR.

STUDY DESIGN

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

METHODS

We reviewed charts of consecutive patients undergoing RCR in our institution between 2017 and 2018 and included patients who were administered the PROMIS UE before surgery and 12 months after surgery. At 12 months postoperatively, patients were asked domain-specific anchor questions regarding their function and satisfaction after surgery, which were then used to determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) using receiver operating characteristic and area under the curve (AUC) analysis. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was utilized to identify patient factors associated with clinically significant outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 105 patients with RCR and minimum 12-month postoperative PROMIS UE were included in the analysis. The defined clinically significant outcomes were 4.87 for the MCID using a distribution-based method, 7.95 for the SCB (sensitivity, 0.708; specificity, 0.833; AUC, 0.760), and 39.00 for the PASS (sensitivity, 0.789; specificity, 0.720; AUC, 0.815). Among respondents, 79.0%, 62.9%, and 64.8% achieved the MCID, SCB, and PASS score thresholds, respectively. Workers' compensation was negatively associated with achievement of the PASS. Lower preoperative PROMIS UE scores were associated with obtaining the MCID (odds ratio [OR], 0.871; P = .001) and the SCB (OR, 0.900; P = .040), whereas higher preoperative scores were predictive of achieving the PASS (OR, 1.111; P = .020).

CONCLUSION

This study defines the clinically significant outcomes for the PROMIS UE after RCR, of which the majority of patients achieved the MCID, PASS, and SCB at 12 months after surgery. These thresholds should be considered in future study design and interpretation of PROMIS UE in patients with RCR.

Outcomes Measurement in Global Hand Surgery

The global burden of musculoskeletal trauma is high. There is a need to improve access to safe, high-quality surgery in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Numerous initiatives have taken aim at solving this underlying shortage in surgical care, including mission trips, academic programs, and international collaborations. However, much work remains to be done in LMICs compared with high-income countries (HICs). In HICs, the field of hand surgery has grown partially owing to the rigorous application of clinical research to examine outcomes and determine best practices. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have a key role as a valid patient-centered method of capturing symptoms and well-being. They have substantial promise in LMICs to understand patient symptom severity and quality of life better, monitor treatment success or failure, determine cost-effectiveness of procedures, and guide capacity building. Contextually appropriate PROMs can improve routine follow-up in LMICs and advance the practice and study of hand surgery worldwide.

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.

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.

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the PROMIS and QuickDASH Instruments in a Nonshoulder Hand and Upper Extremity Patient Population

PURPOSE

The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is used in research and clinical settings as a benchmark to gauge improvement following treatment. The purpose of this study was to provide anchor-based MCID estimates for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and legacy instruments in a nonshoulder hand and upper extremity population.

METHODS

Adult patients (≥18 years) seeking care at a tertiary academic outpatient hand surgery clinic completed patient-reported outcome measures on tablet computers between January 2015 and August 2017. Data were collected at baseline and at 6 ± 2 weeks of follow-up. The PROMIS Upper Extremity (UE), Physical Function (PF), and Pain Interference (PI) Computer Adaptive Test (CAT) instruments were administered, along with the shortened Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH). A mean change anchor-based method was used to estimate MCIDs by comparing scores between anchor groups reporting no change versus slightly improved in terms of function and pain.

RESULTS

Scores for each instrument significantly improved over the study period. With significant differences in scores between groups reporting no change and slightly improved function, anchor-based MCID estimates were calculated as follows: 2.1 for the PROMIS UE CAT, 1.7 for the PROMIS PF CAT, and 6.8 for the QuickDASH. There was no significant difference in PROMIS PI CAT scores between anchor groups when queried for level of pain improvement, precluding estimation of an anchor-based MCID.

CONCLUSIONS

We have provided anchor-based MCID estimates for the PROMIS UE CAT, PROMIS PF CAT, and the QuickDASH for a general nonshoulder hand and upper extremity population. These values may be useful in future research for informing power calculations and when interpreting whether the magnitude of change on these instruments is clinically significant at a population level.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study provides clinicians with a reference for values that may reflect clinically meaningful changes in scores for patient-reported outcome instruments commonly utilized in the current hand surgery literature.

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.