BACKGROUND: Advantages of using computerized adaptive testing (CAT) include decreased survey-burden, diminished floor and ceiling effect, and improved ability to detect the minimal clinical significant difference (MCID) among patients. The goal of this study was to compare the legacy patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores in terms of ability to detect clinically significant changes in patients who have undergone surgery for ankle fractures. METHODS: Patients who underwent osteosynthesis for an unstable ankle fracture between 2013-2016 and completed legacy outcome scores (Foot and Ankle Outcome Score [FAOS], Olerud and Molander Ankle Score [OMAS], and Weber Score) along with the PROMIS Physical Function (PF) and PROMIS Lower Extremity (LE) CATs postoperatively were included. Correlation between the scores at 3-month, 6-month, and 1-year intervals, as well as floor and ceiling effects, in addition to MCIDs were calculated for each instrument. A total of 132 patients were included in the study. RESULTS: There was no observed floor or ceiling effect in either the PROMIS PF or the PROMIS LE scores. Clinically significant changes in the PROMIS LE score were detected in patients between 6-month and 12-month postoperative visits ( P = .0006), whereas the reported OMAS score and Weber scores did not identify a clinically significant difference between patients at their 6-month and 12-month visit. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that the PROMIS LE was superior for evaluating patients following ankle fracture surgery in terms of lower floor and ceiling effects and greater ability to distinguish clinically significant changes in patients between time points following surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, comparative study.
BACKGROUND: Advantages of using computerized adaptive testing (CAT) include decreased survey-burden, diminished floor and ceiling effect, and improved ability to detect the minimal clinical significant difference (MCID) among patients. The goal of this study was to compare the legacy patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores in terms of ability to detect clinically significant changes in patients who have undergone surgery for ankle fractures. METHODS:Patients who underwent osteosynthesis for an unstable ankle fracture between 2013-2016 and completed legacy outcome scores (Foot and Ankle Outcome Score [FAOS], Olerud and Molander Ankle Score [OMAS], and Weber Score) along with the PROMIS Physical Function (PF) and PROMIS Lower Extremity (LE) CATs postoperatively were included. Correlation between the scores at 3-month, 6-month, and 1-year intervals, as well as floor and ceiling effects, in addition to MCIDs were calculated for each instrument. A total of 132 patients were included in the study. RESULTS: There was no observed floor or ceiling effect in either the PROMIS PF or the PROMIS LE scores. Clinically significant changes in the PROMIS LE score were detected in patients between 6-month and 12-month postoperative visits ( P = .0006), whereas the reported OMAS score and Weber scores did not identify a clinically significant difference between patients at their 6-month and 12-month visit. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that the PROMIS LE was superior for evaluating patients following ankle fracture surgery in terms of lower floor and ceiling effects and greater ability to distinguish clinically significant changes in patients between time points following surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, comparative study.
Authors: Benedict U Nwachukwu; R Scott Runyon; Cynthia A Kahlenberg; Elizabeth B Gausden; William W Schairer; Answorth A Allen Journal: Phys Sportsmed Date: 2017-02-23 Impact factor: 2.241
Authors: Benedict U Nwachukwu; Joshua Adjei; Samir K Trehan; Brenda Chang; Kelms Amoo-Achampong; Joseph T Nguyen; Samuel A Taylor; Frank McCormick; Anil S Ranawat Journal: HSS J Date: 2016-08-17
Authors: James T Beckmann; Man Hung; Jerry Bounsanga; James D Wylie; Erin K Granger; Robert Z Tashjian Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Man Hung; Shirley D Hon; Christine Cheng; Jeremy D Franklin; Stephen K Aoki; Mike B Anderson; Ashley L Kapron; Christopher L Peters; Christopher E Pelt Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2014-12-19
Authors: Michael Quan Nguyen; Ingvild Dalen; Marjolein Memelink Iversen; Knut Harboe; Aksel Paulsen Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2022-06-18 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Eitan M Kohan; Jeffrey Ryan Hill; Joseph D Lamplot; Alexander W Aleem; Jay D Keener; Aaron M Chamberlain Journal: J Shoulder Elb Arthroplast Date: 2020-01-23
Authors: Luke Myhre; Patrick Kellam; Graham Dekeyser; Haojia Li; Yue Zhang; Amy M Cizik; Justin Haller Journal: Foot Ankle Int Date: 2022-04-30 Impact factor: 3.569
Authors: Garrett V Christensen; John C Wheelwright; David L Rothberg; Thomas F Higgins; Lucas S Marchand; Justin M Haller Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 2.884
Authors: Arya Minaie; David L Bernholt; Andrew M Block; Ronak M Patel; Rick W Wright; Matthew J Matava; Jeffrey J Nepple Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-08-13
Authors: Maggie E Horn; Emily K Reinke; Logan J Couce; Bryce B Reeve; Leila Ledbetter; Steven Z George Journal: J Orthop Surg Res Date: 2020-11-23 Impact factor: 2.359
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: 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