Chelsea E Minoughan1, Adam P Schumaier2, John L Fritch2, Brian M Grawe2. 1. Department of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.A.. Electronic address: voelklce@mail.uc.edu. 2. Department of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.A.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Physical Function Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Testing (PROMIS PFUE CAT) measurement tool against the already validated American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) in patients presenting with shoulder pain and determine the responder burden for each of the 3 surveys. METHODS: Ninety patients presenting with shoulder pain were asked to fill out the ASES, SST, and PROMIS PFUE CAT. The time for completion of each survey was measured to determine responder burden, and the Pearson correlation between the 3 instruments was defined as excellent (r > 0.7), excellent-good (0.61 ≤ r ≤ 0.7), good (0.31 ≤ r ≤ 0.6), and poor (0.2 ≤ r ≤ 0.3). RESULTS: The PROMIS PFUE CAT showed an excellent correlation with the SST (r = 0.82, P < .001) and ASES (r = 0.72, P < .001). The average time to complete SST, ASES, and PROMIS PFUE CAT was 92.8 ± 35.8, 142.3 ± 60.1, and 61.3 ± 28.8 seconds, respectively. The time to complete the PROMIS PFUE CAT was significantly less than both the SST (P < .001) and ASES (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS PFUE CAT showed an excellent correlation with the previously validated ASES and SST in patients with shoulder pain. The time saving of the PROMIS PFUE CAT was found to be smaller than that of the ASES and SST but shows that moving forward, using the PROMIS PFUE CAT would not place any additional burden on the patient filling out the survey. The lack of ceiling or floor effects with the PROMIS PFUE CAT indicates its ability to differentiate both high and low functioning patients. All of these findings indicate that the PROMIS PFUE CAT is an adequate tool for the evaluation of patients with shoulder pain and should be used in these patients going forward. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, diagnostic study.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Physical Function Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Testing (PROMIS PFUE CAT) measurement tool against the already validated American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) in patients presenting with shoulder pain and determine the responder burden for each of the 3 surveys. METHODS: Ninety patients presenting with shoulder pain were asked to fill out the ASES, SST, and PROMIS PFUE CAT. The time for completion of each survey was measured to determine responder burden, and the Pearson correlation between the 3 instruments was defined as excellent (r > 0.7), excellent-good (0.61 ≤ r ≤ 0.7), good (0.31 ≤ r ≤ 0.6), and poor (0.2 ≤ r ≤ 0.3). RESULTS: The PROMIS PFUE CAT showed an excellent correlation with the SST (r = 0.82, P < .001) and ASES (r = 0.72, P < .001). The average time to complete SST, ASES, and PROMIS PFUE CAT was 92.8 ± 35.8, 142.3 ± 60.1, and 61.3 ± 28.8 seconds, respectively. The time to complete the PROMIS PFUE CAT was significantly less than both the SST (P < .001) and ASES (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS PFUE CAT showed an excellent correlation with the previously validated ASES and SST in patients with shoulder pain. The time saving of the PROMIS PFUE CAT was found to be smaller than that of the ASES and SST but shows that moving forward, using the PROMIS PFUE CAT would not place any additional burden on the patient filling out the survey. The lack of ceiling or floor effects with the PROMIS PFUE CAT indicates its ability to differentiate both high and low functioning patients. All of these findings indicate that the PROMIS PFUE CAT is an adequate tool for the evaluation of patients with shoulder pain and should be used in these patients going forward. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, diagnostic study.
Authors: Ilona Schwarz; John-Rudolph H Smith; Darby A Houck; Rachel M Frank; Jonathan T Bravman; Eric C McCarty Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2020-06-16
Authors: Vincent A Lizzio; Jacob Blanchett; Peter Borowsky; Jason E Meldau; Nikhil N Verma; Stephanie Muh; Vasilios Moutzouros; Eric C Makhni Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2019-01-22
Authors: Jason E Meldau; Peter Borowsky; Jacob Blanchett; Jeffrey Stephens; Stephanie Muh; Vasilios Moutzouros; Eric C Makhni Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2019-11-22
Authors: Caleb M Gulledge; D Grace Smith; Alexander Ziedas; Stephanie J Muh; Vasilios Moutzouros; Eric C Makhni Journal: JB JS Open Access Date: 2019-12-05
Authors: Jacob W Blanchett; Noah A Kuhlmann; Mohsin S Fidai; Peter A Borowsky; Stephanie J Muh; Eric C Makhni Journal: J Obes Metab Syndr Date: 2019-12-30