David N Bernstein1, Jeff R Houck2, Warren C Hammert3. 1. University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY. 2. Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY. 3. Department of Physical Therapy, George Fox University, Newberg, OR. Electronic address: warren_hammert@urmc.rochester.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to (1) determine the correlation of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) with PROMIS Upper Extremity (UE) and compare the correlations of PF and UE with PROMIS Pain Interference (PI) and PROMIS Depression; (2) compare the ability of PF and UE to capture health outcomes across the spectrum in patients seeking hand care; and (3) compare the time to completion for PROMIS PF to that for PROMIS UE. METHODS: Patients presenting to a hand clinic between October, 2015 and October, 2017 were asked to complete PROMIS PF, UE, PI, and Depression computerized adaptive tests. Spearman correlation coefficients (ρ) were calculated between the domains. Ceiling and floor effects and time to completion of each domain were compared. RESULTS: A total of 20,489 unique visits representing 10,344 patients met inclusion criteria. On average, PROMIS UE demonstrated more functional disability than did PROMIS PF (PF: 43.9 [95% confidence interval (CI), 43.7-44.0] vs UE: 38.5 [95% CI, 38.4-38.7]). PROMIS PF and UE were positively correlated (ρ = 0.79) and both were inversely correlated with PROMIS PI (PF: ρ = -0.72; UE: ρ = -0.72). PROMIS PF and UE were both inversely correlated with PROMIS Depression (PF: ρ = -0.44; UE: ρ = -0.44). PROMIS PF demonstrated better ceiling (0.6% vs 7.5%) and floor effects (0.07% vs 0.4%). The PROMIS UE CAT was completed in about the same time as the PROMIS PF CAT (UE: 59.8 seconds [95% CI, 59.3-60.3 seconds] vs PF: 54.1 seconds [95% CI, 53.8-54.5 seconds]). CONCLUSIONS: PROMIS PF captures functional outcomes similar to those of the UE domain with better performance (ie, ceiling and floor effects) in patients with hand pathologies. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Hand surgeons should consider the trade-off of using PROMIS PF instead of PROMIS UE or vice versa when selecting a domain for patient care. Although PROMIS PF may capture slight variations in function at the extremes better than the current PROMIS UE, this may not be as clinically important as capturing large changes in upper-extremity function more specifically, which PROMIS UE accomplishes.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to (1) determine the correlation of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) with PROMIS Upper Extremity (UE) and compare the correlations of PF and UE with PROMIS Pain Interference (PI) and PROMIS Depression; (2) compare the ability of PF and UE to capture health outcomes across the spectrum in patients seeking hand care; and (3) compare the time to completion for PROMIS PF to that for PROMIS UE. METHODS:Patients presenting to a hand clinic between October, 2015 and October, 2017 were asked to complete PROMIS PF, UE, PI, and Depression computerized adaptive tests. Spearman correlation coefficients (ρ) were calculated between the domains. Ceiling and floor effects and time to completion of each domain were compared. RESULTS: A total of 20,489 unique visits representing 10,344 patients met inclusion criteria. On average, PROMIS UE demonstrated more functional disability than did PROMIS PF (PF: 43.9 [95% confidence interval (CI), 43.7-44.0] vs UE: 38.5 [95% CI, 38.4-38.7]). PROMIS PF and UE were positively correlated (ρ = 0.79) and both were inversely correlated with PROMIS PI (PF: ρ = -0.72; UE: ρ = -0.72). PROMIS PF and UE were both inversely correlated with PROMIS Depression (PF: ρ = -0.44; UE: ρ = -0.44). PROMIS PF demonstrated better ceiling (0.6% vs 7.5%) and floor effects (0.07% vs 0.4%). The PROMIS UE CAT was completed in about the same time as the PROMIS PF CAT (UE: 59.8 seconds [95% CI, 59.3-60.3 seconds] vs PF: 54.1 seconds [95% CI, 53.8-54.5 seconds]). CONCLUSIONS:PROMIS PF captures functional outcomes similar to those of the UE domain with better performance (ie, ceiling and floor effects) in patients with hand pathologies. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Hand surgeons should consider the trade-off of using PROMIS PF instead of PROMIS UE or vice versa when selecting a domain for patient care. Although PROMIS PF may capture slight variations in function at the extremes better than the current PROMIS UE, this may not be as clinically important as capturing large changes in upper-extremity function more specifically, which PROMIS UE accomplishes.
Authors: Chinmay S Paranjape; Olivia B de Araujo; Lisa M Reider; Paul D Sponseller; Anthony R Carlini; Kevin McLaughlin; Keith R Bachmann; Stuart L Mitchell Journal: J Pediatr Orthop Date: 2022-08-16 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: James C Hubbard; Yue Zhang; Yuqing Qiu; Minkyoung Yoo; Andrew R Stephens; Michelle Zeidan; Nikolas H Kazmers Journal: J Hand Surg Am Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Yining Lu; Alexander Beletsky; Benedict U Nwachukwu; Bhavik H Patel; Kelechi R Okoroha; Nikhil Verma; Brian Cole; Brian Forsythe Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2020-10-24
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: Nikhil R Yedulla; Carson T Wilmouth; Sreten Franovic; Alaa A Hazime; Jared T Hudson; Charles S Day Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2021-08-17
Authors: Toufic R Jildeh; Joshua P Castle; Muhammad J Abbas; Miriam E Dash; Noel O Akioyamen; Kelechi R Okoroha Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2021-08-05
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