Literature DB >> 35491661

Minimal Clinically Important Differences of PROMIS PF in Ankle Fracture Patients.

Luke Myhre1, Patrick Kellam1, Graham Dekeyser1, Haojia Li2, Yue Zhang2, Amy M Cizik, Justin Haller1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evaluating the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) in patient-reported outcome scores is essential for use of clinical outcomes data. The purpose of the current study was to calculate MCID of Patient Reported Outcome Information System Physical Function (PROMIS PF) scores for ankle fracture patients.
METHODS: All patients who underwent operative fixation for ankle fractures at a single level 1 trauma center were identified by Current Procedural Terminology code. PROMIS PF scores were collected. Patients had to complete an anchor question at 2 time points postoperatively to be included in this study. Anchor-based and distribution-based MCIDs were calculated.
RESULTS: A total of 331 patients were included in the distribution-based analysis, and 195 patients were included in the anchor-based analysis. Mean age was 45.3 years (SD 17.5), and 59.4% of participants were female. MCID for PROMIS PF scores was 5.05 in the distribution-based method and 5.43 in the anchor-based method.
CONCLUSION: This study identified MCID values based on 2 time points postoperatively for PROMIS PF scores in the ankle fracture population. Both methods of MCID calculation resulted in equivalent MCIDs. This can be used to identify patients outside the normal preoperative and postoperative norms and may help to make clinically relevant practice decisions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, diagnostic study, testing of previously developed diagnostic measure on consecutive patients with reference standard applied.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MCID; PROMIS; ankle fracture; physical function

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35491661      PMCID: PMC9256771          DOI: 10.1177/10711007221091815

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Foot Ankle Int        ISSN: 1071-1007            Impact factor:   3.569


  11 in total

Review 1.  Assessing the minimally clinically significant difference: scientific considerations, challenges and solutions.

Authors:  Jeff A Sloan
Journal:  COPD       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.409

Review 2.  Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  Dennis Revicki; Ron D Hays; David Cella; Jeff Sloan
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2007-08-03       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Validation and Generalizability of Preoperative PROMIS Scores to Predict Postoperative Success in Foot and Ankle Patients.

Authors:  Michael R Anderson; Jeff R Houck; Charles L Saltzman; Man Hung; Florian Nickisch; Alexej Barg; Timothy Beals; Judith F Baumhauer
Journal:  Foot Ankle Int       Date:  2018-04-05       Impact factor: 2.827

4.  Clinimetrics corner: a closer look at the minimal clinically important difference (MCID).

Authors:  Alexis Wright; Joseph Hannon; Eric J Hegedus; Alicia Emerson Kavchak
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2012-08

5.  Computerized Adaptive Testing for Patient Reported Outcomes in Ankle Fracture Surgery.

Authors:  Elizabeth B Gausden; Ashley Levack; Benedict U Nwachukwu; Danielle Sin; David S Wellman; Dean G Lorich
Journal:  Foot Ankle Int       Date:  2018-07-04       Impact factor: 2.827

6.  PROMIS and FAAM Minimal Clinically Important Differences in Foot and Ankle Orthopedics.

Authors:  Man Hung; Judith F Baumhauer; Frank W Licari; Maren W Voss; Jerry Bounsanga; Charles L Saltzman
Journal:  Foot Ankle Int       Date:  2018-10-04       Impact factor: 2.827

7.  Improving patient reported outcomes using item response theory and computerized adaptive testing.

Authors:  Eliza F Chakravarty; Jakob B Bjorner; James F Fries
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 4.666

8.  Evaluation of item candidates: the PROMIS qualitative item review.

Authors:  Darren A DeWalt; Nan Rothrock; Susan Yount; Arthur A Stone
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  The PROMIS Physical Function item bank was calibrated to a standardized metric and shown to improve measurement efficiency.

Authors:  Matthias Rose; Jakob B Bjorner; Barbara Gandek; Bonnie Bruce; James F Fries; John E Ware
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 6.437

10.  Establishing minimum clinically important difference values for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint reconstruction, and knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint reconstruction in orthopaedics.

Authors:  Man Hung; Jerry Bounsanga; Maren W Voss; Charles L Saltzman
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2018-03-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.