BACKGROUND: To assess disability more efficiently with less burden on the patient, the National Institutes of Health has developed the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function-an instrument based on item response theory and using computer adaptive testing (CAT). Initially, upper and lower extremity disabilities were not separated and we were curious if the PROMIS Physical Function CAT could measure upper extremity disability and the Quick Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH). QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We aimed to find correlation between the PROMIS Physical Function and the QuickDASH questionnaires in patients with upper extremity illness. Secondarily, we addressed whether the PROMIS Physical Function and QuickDASH correlate with the PROMIS Depression CAT and PROMIS Pain Interference CAT instruments. Finally, we assessed factors associated with QuickDASH and PROMIS Physical Function in multivariable analysis. METHODS: A cohort of 93 outpatients with upper extremity illnesses completed the QuickDASH and three PROMIS CAT questionnaires: Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Depression. Pain intensity was measured with an 11-point ordinal measure (0-10 numeric rating scale). Correlation between PROMIS Physical Function and the QuickDASH was assessed. Factors that correlated with the PROMIS Physical Function and QuickDASH were assessed in multivariable regression analysis after initial bivariate analysis. RESULTS: There was a moderate correlation between the PROMIS Physical Function and the QuickDASH questionnaire (r=-0.55, p<0.001). Greater disability as measured with the PROMIS and QuickDASH correlated most strongly with PROMIS Depression (r=-0.35, p<0.001 and r=0.34, p<0.001 respectively) and Pain Interference (r=-0.51, p<0.001 and r=0.74, p<0.001 respectively). The factors accounting for the variability in PROMIS scores are comparable to those for the QuickDASH except that the PROMIS Physical Function is influenced by other pain conditions while the QuickDASH is not. CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS Physical Function instrument may be used as an upper extremity disability measure, as it correlates with the QuickDASH questionnaire, and both instruments are influenced most strongly by the degree to which pain interferes with achieving goals. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
BACKGROUND: To assess disability more efficiently with less burden on the patient, the National Institutes of Health has developed the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function-an instrument based on item response theory and using computer adaptive testing (CAT). Initially, upper and lower extremity disabilities were not separated and we were curious if the PROMIS Physical Function CAT could measure upper extremity disability and the Quick Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH). QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We aimed to find correlation between the PROMIS Physical Function and the QuickDASH questionnaires in patients with upper extremity illness. Secondarily, we addressed whether the PROMIS Physical Function and QuickDASH correlate with the PROMIS Depression CAT and PROMIS Pain Interference CAT instruments. Finally, we assessed factors associated with QuickDASH and PROMIS Physical Function in multivariable analysis. METHODS: A cohort of 93 outpatients with upper extremity illnesses completed the QuickDASH and three PROMIS CAT questionnaires: Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Depression. Pain intensity was measured with an 11-point ordinal measure (0-10 numeric rating scale). Correlation between PROMIS Physical Function and the QuickDASH was assessed. Factors that correlated with the PROMIS Physical Function and QuickDASH were assessed in multivariable regression analysis after initial bivariate analysis. RESULTS: There was a moderate correlation between the PROMIS Physical Function and the QuickDASH questionnaire (r=-0.55, p<0.001). Greater disability as measured with the PROMIS and QuickDASH correlated most strongly with PROMIS Depression (r=-0.35, p<0.001 and r=0.34, p<0.001 respectively) and Pain Interference (r=-0.51, p<0.001 and r=0.74, p<0.001 respectively). The factors accounting for the variability in PROMIS scores are comparable to those for the QuickDASH except that the PROMIS Physical Function is influenced by other pain conditions while the QuickDASH is not. CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS Physical Function instrument may be used as an upper extremity disability measure, as it correlates with the QuickDASH questionnaire, and both instruments are influenced most strongly by the degree to which pain interferes with achieving goals. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Authors: David Ring; John Kadzielski; Lauren Fabian; David Zurakowski; Leah R Malhotra; Jesse B Jupiter Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Alan M Jette; Stephen M Haley; Pengsheng Ni; Sippy Olarsch; Richard Moed Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Ana-Maria Vranceanu; Steven Safren; Meijuan Zhao; James Cowan; David Ring Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2008-07-18 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Casey M Beleckas; Alex Padovano; Jason Guattery; Aaron M Chamberlain; Jay D Keener; Ryan P Calfee Journal: J Hand Surg Am Date: 2017-07-12 Impact factor: 2.230
Authors: David N Bernstein; Jeff R Houck; Ronald M Gonzalez; Danielle M Wilbur; Richard J Miller; David J Mitten; Warren C Hammert Journal: Hand (N Y) Date: 2018-08-03