STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional cohort analysis. OBJECTIVE: (1) To assess the correlation between Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF) and pain interference (PI) in patients seeking spine care; (2) to assess the correlation between PROMIS PF and the Likert Pain Scale (LPS) in patients seeking spine care; (3) to determine which pain scale best correlates to physical function overall and by number of clinic visits. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: An accurate understanding of a patient's pain level is beneficial in setting clinical and pain management expectations. There is limited work analyzing which instrument best captures pain and its impact on function in patients seeking spine care. METHODS: Spine center patients from February 2015 to November 2017 were asked to complete PROMIS PF and PI domains, as well as to report their pain level on a 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain) LPS at each visit. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between PROMIS PF and PROMIS PI; PROMIS PI and LPS; and PROMIS PF and LPS. Fisher r-z transformation method was utilized for confidence intervals (CIs) and to determine significant correlation differences. Analyses were performed for all data, as well as by office visit. Significance was set at P < 0.01. RESULTS: A total of 21,774 first visit, 11,130 second visit, 6575 third visit, 4202 fourth visit, and 2819 fifth visit patients' data were recorded. PROMIS PF demonstrated a moderate correlation with the LPS over all visits (r = 0.46-0.49, P < 0.01). PROMIS PF demonstrated a strong correlation with PROMIS PI over all visits (r = 0.73-0.77, P < 0.01). Overall, PROMIS PI demonstrated significantly better correlation to self-reported physical function than the LPS (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: While PROMIS PI and the LPS both demonstrated significant correlation with self-reported physical function, PROMIS PI had a significantly stronger correlation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional cohort analysis. OBJECTIVE: (1) To assess the correlation between Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF) and pain interference (PI) in patients seeking spine care; (2) to assess the correlation between PROMIS PF and the Likert Pain Scale (LPS) in patients seeking spine care; (3) to determine which pain scale best correlates to physical function overall and by number of clinic visits. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: An accurate understanding of a patient's pain level is beneficial in setting clinical and pain management expectations. There is limited work analyzing which instrument best captures pain and its impact on function in patients seeking spine care. METHODS: Spine center patients from February 2015 to November 2017 were asked to complete PROMIS PF and PI domains, as well as to report their pain level on a 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain) LPS at each visit. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between PROMIS PF and PROMIS PI; PROMIS PI and LPS; and PROMIS PF and LPS. Fisher r-z transformation method was utilized for confidence intervals (CIs) and to determine significant correlation differences. Analyses were performed for all data, as well as by office visit. Significance was set at P < 0.01. RESULTS: A total of 21,774 first visit, 11,130 second visit, 6575 third visit, 4202 fourth visit, and 2819 fifth visit patients' data were recorded. PROMIS PF demonstrated a moderate correlation with the LPS over all visits (r = 0.46-0.49, P < 0.01). PROMIS PF demonstrated a strong correlation with PROMIS PI over all visits (r = 0.73-0.77, P < 0.01). Overall, PROMIS PI demonstrated significantly better correlation to self-reported physical function than the LPS (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: While PROMIS PI and the LPS both demonstrated significant correlation with self-reported physical function, PROMIS PI had a significantly stronger correlation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
Authors: Josie Znidarsic; Kellie N Kirksey; Stephen M Dombrowski; Anne Tang; Rocio Lopez; Heather Blonsky; Irina Todorov; Dana Schneeberger; Jonathan Doyle; Linda Libertini; Starkey Jamie; Tracy Segall; Andrew Bang; Kathy Barringer; Bar Judi; Jane Pernotto Ehrman; Michael F Roizen; Mladen Golubić Journal: Pain Med Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: David N Bernstein; Aditya V Karhade; Christopher M Bono; Joseph H Schwab; Mitchel B Harris; Daniel G Tobert Journal: JB JS Open Access Date: 2022-08-04