BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The recently developed National Institutes of Health PROMIS initiative provides reliable and valid measures across many health domains. We correlated changes in pain-related PROMIS measures and changes in both an NRS and the RMDI in patients undergoing spine augmentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty patients, composed of 26 women (40-91 years of age; mean, 72.6 years) and 24 men (42-78 years of age, mean, 67.5 years) were enrolled in the study. They were asked at initial presentation and at 30 days to rate the intensity of their pain in the past 24 hours by using a 0-10 pain NRS as well at the 23-item RMDI. Study subjects also completed 3 different PROMIS short forms, including physical function, pain behavior, and pain interference. The Spearman correlation was used to assess the correlation between the scales. The RCI × 1.96 was calculated for each measurement tool as an indicator of change. RESULTS: All instruments were responsive to detection of change during 1 month (all, P < .0001). Correlations between changes in physical function, pain interference, and pain behavior PROMIS scores and changes in RMDI scores were 0.37, 0.44, and 0.42, respectively. Direction of changes (declines versus improvements) in RMDI and other scales were the same in approximately 60% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: All measures evaluated had adequate and comparable psychometric properties. The choice of which measure to use depends on the clinical intent of the intervention.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The recently developed National Institutes of Health PROMIS initiative provides reliable and valid measures across many health domains. We correlated changes in pain-related PROMIS measures and changes in both an NRS and the RMDI in patients undergoing spine augmentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty patients, composed of 26 women (40-91 years of age; mean, 72.6 years) and 24 men (42-78 years of age, mean, 67.5 years) were enrolled in the study. They were asked at initial presentation and at 30 days to rate the intensity of their pain in the past 24 hours by using a 0-10 painNRS as well at the 23-item RMDI. Study subjects also completed 3 different PROMIS short forms, including physical function, pain behavior, and pain interference. The Spearman correlation was used to assess the correlation between the scales. The RCI × 1.96 was calculated for each measurement tool as an indicator of change. RESULTS: All instruments were responsive to detection of change during 1 month (all, P < .0001). Correlations between changes in physical function, pain interference, and pain behavior PROMIS scores and changes in RMDI scores were 0.37, 0.44, and 0.42, respectively. Direction of changes (declines versus improvements) in RMDI and other scales were the same in approximately 60% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: All measures evaluated had adequate and comparable psychometric properties. The choice of which measure to use depends on the clinical intent of the intervention.
Authors: Elizabeth A Hahn; David Cella; Olivier Chassany; Diane L Fairclough; Gilbert Y Wong; Ron D Hays Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: David Cella; William Riley; Arthur Stone; Nan Rothrock; Bryce Reeve; Susan Yount; Dagmar Amtmann; Rita Bode; Daniel Buysse; Seung Choi; Karon Cook; Robert Devellis; Darren DeWalt; James F Fries; Richard Gershon; Elizabeth A Hahn; Jin-Shei Lai; Paul Pilkonis; Dennis Revicki; Matthias Rose; Kevin Weinfurt; Ron Hays Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: J S Bajaj; L R Thacker; J B Wade; A J Sanyal; D M Heuman; R K Sterling; D P Gibson; R T Stravitz; P Puri; M Fuchs; V Luketic; N Noble; M White; D Bell; D A Revicki Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2011-09-19 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Chen X Chen; Kurt Kroenke; Timothy Stump; Jacob Kean; Erin E Krebs; Matthew J Bair; Teresa Damush; Patrick O Monahan Journal: J Pain Date: 2018-12-06 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: L Shahgholi; K J Yost; R E Carter; J R Geske; C E Hagen; K K Amrami; F E Diehn; T J Kaufmann; J M Morris; N S Murthy; J T Wald; K R Thielen; D F Kallmes; T P Maus Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Pamela L Wolters; Staci Martin; Vanessa L Merker; James H Tonsgard; Sondra E Solomon; Andrea Baldwin; Amanda L Bergner; Karin Walsh; Heather L Thompson; Kathy L Gardner; Cynthia M Hingtgen; Elizabeth Schorry; William N Dudley; Barbara Franklin Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Jacob Kean; Patrick O Monahan; Kurt Kroenke; Jingwei Wu; Zhangsheng Yu; Tim E Stump; Erin E Krebs Journal: Med Care Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Richard A Deyo; David I Buckley; LeAnn Michaels; Amy Kobus; Elizabeth Eckstrom; Vanessa Forro; Cynthia Morris Journal: Pain Med Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Man Hung; Charles L Saltzman; Maren W Voss; Jerry Bounsanga; Richard Kendall; Ryan Spiker; Brandon Lawrence; Darrel Brodke Journal: Spine J Date: 2018-06-30 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Vidushan Nadarajah; Anshum Sood; Jamie L Kator; Michael J Foster; Julio J Jauregui; Mohit N Gilotra; S Ashfaq Hasan; R Frank Henn Journal: J Clin Orthop Trauma Date: 2020-04-30
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; John Devin Peipert; Robert Chapman; Jin-Shei Lai; Berend Terluin; David Cella; Philip Griffith; Lidwine B Mokkink Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-07-10 Impact factor: 4.147