Robert N Matar1, Nihar S Shah2, Brian M Grawe1. 1. Department of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.A. 2. Department of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.A.. Electronic address: Shah2n3@ucmail.uc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the current literature regarding Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and its correlation to legacy patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) in 5 domains: (1) rotator cuff disease, (2) shoulder instability, (3) shoulder arthroplasty, (4) proximal humerus fractures, and (5) glenohumeral arthritis. The secondary purpose is to evaluate the floor and ceiling effects, the number of questions, and time needed to complete PROMIS and legacy PROMs in shoulder care. METHODS: A systematic review of the available literature on PROMIS scores in shoulder care was performed. This review was accomplished per PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies that reported data on 1485 patients met inclusion criteria. There was a strong correlation between general function PROMs and the PROMIS PF for patients with rotator cuff disease, shoulder instability, shoulder arthroplasty, and proximal humerus fractures. In addition, there was a strong correlation between PROMIS UE and legacy PROMs in patients with rotator cuff injury and shoulder instability. PROMIS instruments asked fewer questions than legacy PROMs (9.46 vs 12.99, respectively), took less time to complete (88.21 vs 96.53 seconds, respectively), had less floor effects in both PROMIS PF and UE (0.17% and 0.62% vs 2.89%, respectively), and had lower ceiling effects for PROMIS PF but not PROMIS UE assessments (0.17% and 6.37% vs 1.89%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review demonstrated PROMIS instruments have varying correlations with legacy PROMs measures for patients with rotator cuff disease, shoulder instability, shoulder arthroplasty, and glenohumeral arthritis. PROMIS instruments do measure clinical outcomes faster and with fewer questions. Other than PROMIS UE v1.2 ceiling effects, PROMIS instruments have lower rates of floor and ceiling effects. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II-IV studies.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the current literature regarding Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and its correlation to legacy patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) in 5 domains: (1) rotator cuff disease, (2) shoulder instability, (3) shoulder arthroplasty, (4) proximal humerus fractures, and (5) glenohumeral arthritis. The secondary purpose is to evaluate the floor and ceiling effects, the number of questions, and time needed to complete PROMIS and legacy PROMs in shoulder care. METHODS: A systematic review of the available literature on PROMIS scores in shoulder care was performed. This review was accomplished per PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies that reported data on 1485 patients met inclusion criteria. There was a strong correlation between general function PROMs and the PROMIS PF for patients with rotator cuff disease, shoulder instability, shoulder arthroplasty, and proximal humerus fractures. In addition, there was a strong correlation between PROMIS UE and legacy PROMs in patients with rotator cuff injury and shoulder instability. PROMIS instruments asked fewer questions than legacy PROMs (9.46 vs 12.99, respectively), took less time to complete (88.21 vs 96.53 seconds, respectively), had less floor effects in both PROMIS PF and UE (0.17% and 0.62% vs 2.89%, respectively), and had lower ceiling effects for PROMIS PF but not PROMIS UE assessments (0.17% and 6.37% vs 1.89%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review demonstrated PROMIS instruments have varying correlations with legacy PROMs measures for patients with rotator cuff disease, shoulder instability, shoulder arthroplasty, and glenohumeral arthritis. PROMIS instruments do measure clinical outcomes faster and with fewer questions. Other than PROMIS UE v1.2 ceiling effects, PROMIS instruments have lower rates of floor and ceiling effects. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II-IV studies.