John T Wilkinson1, Jordan W Clawson2, Chelsea M Allen3, Angela P Presson3, Andrew R Tyser1, Nikolas H Kazmers4. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, Salt Lake City, UT. 2. School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO. 3. Department of Pediatric Research Enterprise, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT. 4. Department of Orthopaedics, Salt Lake City, UT. Electronic address: nkazmers@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Our primary purpose was to evaluate the reliability of telephone administration of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity (UE) Computer Adaptive Test (CAT) version 2.0 in a hand and upper extremity population, and secondarily to make comparisons with the abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH). METHODS: Patients more than 1 year out from hand surgeries performed at a single tertiary institution were enrolled. Half of the patients completed telephone PROMIS UE CAT and QuickDASH surveys first, followed by computer-based surveys 1 to 10 days later, and the other half completed them in the reverse order. Telephone surveys were readministered 2 to 6 weeks later to evaluate test-retest reliability. Concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs) were used to assess agreement between telephone and computer-based scores, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to assess test-retest reliability. The proportion of patients with discrepancies in follow-up scores that exceeded estimates of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was evaluated. RESULTS: For the 89 enrolled patients, the PROMIS UE CAT CCC was 0.82 (83% confidence interval [83% CI], 0.77-0.86; good), which was significantly lower than 0.92 (83% CI, 0.89-0.94; good to excellent) for the QuickDASH. The PROMIS UE CAT ICC did not differ significantly from the QuickDASH (0.85 and 0.91, respectively). Differences in telephone versus computer scores exceeded 5 points (MCID estimate) for the PROMIS UE CAT in 34% of patients versus 5% of patients exceeding 14 points (MCID estimate) for the QuickDASH. CONCLUSIONS: Significantly better reliability was observed for the QuickDASH than the PROMIS UE CAT when comparing telephone with computer-based score acquisition. Over one-third of patients demonstrated a clinically relevant difference in scores between the telephone and the computer-administered tests. We conclude that the PROMIS UE CAT should only be administered through computer-based methods. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These findings suggest that differences in collection methods for the PROMIS UE CAT may systematically affect the scores obtained, which may erroneously influence the interpretation of postoperative scores for hand surgery patients.
PURPOSE: Our primary purpose was to evaluate the reliability of telephone administration of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity (UE) Computer Adaptive Test (CAT) version 2.0 in a hand and upper extremity population, and secondarily to make comparisons with the abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH). METHODS: Patients more than 1 year out from hand surgeries performed at a single tertiary institution were enrolled. Half of the patients completed telephone PROMIS UE CAT and QuickDASH surveys first, followed by computer-based surveys 1 to 10 days later, and the other half completed them in the reverse order. Telephone surveys were readministered 2 to 6 weeks later to evaluate test-retest reliability. Concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs) were used to assess agreement between telephone and computer-based scores, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to assess test-retest reliability. The proportion of patients with discrepancies in follow-up scores that exceeded estimates of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was evaluated. RESULTS: For the 89 enrolled patients, the PROMIS UE CAT CCC was 0.82 (83% confidence interval [83% CI], 0.77-0.86; good), which was significantly lower than 0.92 (83% CI, 0.89-0.94; good to excellent) for the QuickDASH. The PROMIS UE CAT ICC did not differ significantly from the QuickDASH (0.85 and 0.91, respectively). Differences in telephone versus computer scores exceeded 5 points (MCID estimate) for the PROMIS UE CAT in 34% of patients versus 5% of patients exceeding 14 points (MCID estimate) for the QuickDASH. CONCLUSIONS: Significantly better reliability was observed for the QuickDASH than the PROMIS UE CAT when comparing telephone with computer-based score acquisition. Over one-third of patients demonstrated a clinically relevant difference in scores between the telephone and the computer-administered tests. We conclude that the PROMIS UE CAT should only be administered through computer-based methods. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These findings suggest that differences in collection methods for the PROMIS UE CAT may systematically affect the scores obtained, which may erroneously influence the interpretation of postoperative scores for hand surgery patients.
Authors: Amelia A Sorensen; Daniel Howard; Wen Hui Tan; Jeffrey Ketchersid; Ryan P Calfee Journal: J Hand Surg Am Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 2.230
Authors: Joan E Broderick; Stefan Schneider; Doerte U Junghaenel; Joseph E Schwartz; Arthur A Stone Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: James T Beckmann; Man Hung; Maren W Voss; Anthony B Crum; Jerry Bounsanga; Andrew R Tyser Journal: J Hand Surg Am Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 2.230
Authors: Gregory L Cvetanovich; Anirudh K Gowd; Joseph N Liu; Benedict U Nwachukwu; Brandon C Cabarcas; Brian J Cole; Brian Forsythe; Anthony A Romeo; Nikhil N Verma Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Aditya V Karhade; David N Bernstein; Vineet Desai; Hany S Bedair; Evan A O'Donnell; Miho J Tanaka; Christopher M Bono; Mitchel B Harris; Joseph H Schwab; Daniel G Tobert Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 4.755