Caleb M Gulledge1, Vincent A Lizzio1, D Grace Smith1, Eric Guo1, Eric C Makhni2. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan, U.S.A. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan, U.S.A. Electronic address: ericmakhnimd@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review to answer the following: (1) What are the floor and ceiling (F/C) effects of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computer adaptive test (CAT) domains of physical function (PF), upper extremity physical function (UE), pain interference (PI), and depression (D) in adult orthopaedic patients? (2) Do the PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-PI domains have differing F/C effects depending on use in upper extremity, lower extremity, spine, neck, and back, or trauma patients?. METHODS: (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed, the review was registered on PROSPERO, and the methodological index for non-randomized studies was used for this systematic review. Studies reporting the F/C effects of at least 1 of 4 PROMIS CAT domains in orthopaedic patient cohorts accessed through PubMed and Embase on October 30, 2018, were included. F/C effects for each study were reported within forest plots. RESULTS: Forty-three studies were included. Generally, varying cohorts demonstrated no F/C effects for PROMIS-PF (0%-9.0%), variable ceiling effects for PROMIS-UE (lower in v2.0; 0%-28.2%), variable floor effects for PROMIS-PI (0%-19.0%), and significant floor effects for PROMIS-D (0.4%-23.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The orthopaedic literature demonstrated generally favorable floor and ceiling effects for PROMIS CAT domains, with the exception of variable ceiling effects for PROMIS-UE (the newer version exhibits only minor effects), variable floor effects for PROMIS-PI, and significant floor effects for PROMIS-D. In addition, the F/C effects of PROMIS-PF did not vary based on patient population. Although the floor effects of PROMIS-PI did vary based on patient population, the variability does not appear to be based solely on anatomic location. The PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-UE v2.0 demonstrate consistently low floor and ceiling effects. However, the PROMIS-PI and PROMIS-D may need modification before widespread adoption for clinical and research purposes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III; systematic review of Level I-III studies.
PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review to answer the following: (1) What are the floor and ceiling (F/C) effects of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computer adaptive test (CAT) domains of physical function (PF), upper extremity physical function (UE), pain interference (PI), and depression (D) in adult orthopaedic patients? (2) Do the PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-PI domains have differing F/C effects depending on use in upper extremity, lower extremity, spine, neck, and back, or traumapatients?. METHODS: (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed, the review was registered on PROSPERO, and the methodological index for non-randomized studies was used for this systematic review. Studies reporting the F/C effects of at least 1 of 4 PROMIS CAT domains in orthopaedic patient cohorts accessed through PubMed and Embase on October 30, 2018, were included. F/C effects for each study were reported within forest plots. RESULTS: Forty-three studies were included. Generally, varying cohorts demonstrated no F/C effects for PROMIS-PF (0%-9.0%), variable ceiling effects for PROMIS-UE (lower in v2.0; 0%-28.2%), variable floor effects for PROMIS-PI (0%-19.0%), and significant floor effects for PROMIS-D (0.4%-23.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The orthopaedic literature demonstrated generally favorable floor and ceiling effects for PROMIS CAT domains, with the exception of variable ceiling effects for PROMIS-UE (the newer version exhibits only minor effects), variable floor effects for PROMIS-PI, and significant floor effects for PROMIS-D. In addition, the F/C effects of PROMIS-PF did not vary based on patient population. Although the floor effects of PROMIS-PI did vary based on patient population, the variability does not appear to be based solely on anatomic location. The PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-UE v2.0 demonstrate consistently low floor and ceiling effects. However, the PROMIS-PI and PROMIS-D may need modification before widespread adoption for clinical and research purposes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III; systematic review of Level I-III studies.
Authors: Stuart L Mitchell; Kevin H McLaughlin; Keith R Bachmann; Paul D Sponseller; Lisa M Reider Journal: J Pediatr Orthop Date: 2022-06-15 Impact factor: 2.537
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: Thomas C Edwards; Brogan Guest; Amy Garner; Kartik Logishetty; Alexander D Liddle; Justin P Cobb Journal: Bone Joint Res Date: 2022-05 Impact factor: 4.410
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; Dylan Koolmees; D Grace Smith; Alexander Pietroski; Sreten Franovic; Vasilios Moutzouros; Eric C Makhni Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-01-22
Authors: Sean B Sequeira; Megan L Grainger; Abigail M Mitchell; Cassidy C Anderson; Shashwati Geed; Peter Lum; Aviram M Giladi Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2022-08-18