A SANE Approach to Outcome Collection? Comparing the Performance of Single- Versus Multiple-Question Patient-Reported Outcome Measures After Total Hip Arthroplasty

被引:13
|
作者
Torchia, Michael T. [1 ]
Austin, Daniel C. [1 ]
Werth, Paul M. [1 ]
Lucas, Adriana P. [1 ]
Moschetti, Wayne E. [1 ,2 ]
Jevsevar, David S. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Dartmouth Hitchcock Med Ctr, Dept Orthopaed, Lebanon, NH 03766 USA
[2] Dartmouth Coll, Geisel Sch Med, Dept Orthopaed, Hanover, NH 03755 USA
关键词
total hip arthroplasty; outcomes; patient-reported outcome measures; single assessment numeric evaluation; value; ASSESSMENT NUMERIC EVALUATION; HEALTH-CARE; SHOULDER; RESPONSIVENESS; SYSTEM; SCORE;
D O I
10.1016/j.arth.2020.01.015
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Several patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) exist to measure outcomes after total hip arthroplasty (THA) but can be limited by patient-perceived burden and completion rates. We analyzed whether the modified single assessment numerical evaluation (M-SANE), a one-question PROM, would perform similarly to multiple-question PROMs among patients undergoing primary THA. Methods: Patients undergoing THA completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-10 (PROMIS-10), the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score Junior (HOOS-Jr), and M-SANE questionnaires both preoperatively and postoperatively. The M-SANE assessment asked patients to assess their hip on a scale from 0 to 10, with 10 being the best possible score. Validity of M-SANE compared with other PROMs was determined by Spearman's correlation and floor and ceiling effects. Responsiveness was analyzed using standardized response mean (SRM). Results: One hundred and thirty six patients with at least 1-year follow-up were reviewed. The average M-SANE score improved from 3.3 preoperatively to 7.1 at one year postoperatively. There was moderate to strong correlation at one-year follow-up between the M-SANE and HOOS-Jr (rho = 0.75, P < .001) and PROMIS-10 physical component summary (rho = 0.63, P < .001). Floor and ceiling effects of the M-SANE (floor 2.0%, ceiling 21.3%) were comparable to the HOOS-Jr (floor 0.0%, ceiling 20.8%). The responsiveness of the M-SANE after THA (SRM = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.79-1.33) was comparable to HOOS-Jr (SRM = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.08-1.59) and superior to PROMIS-10 physical component summary (SRM = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.55-0.74). Conclusion: The M-SANE has performed similarly across multiple psychometric properties compared with more burdensome PROMs in assessing longitudinal patient-reported outcomes after THA. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:S207 / S213
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A One-Question Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Is Comparable to Multiple-Question Measures in Total Knee Arthroplasty Patients
    Austin, Daniel C.
    Torchia, Michael T.
    Werth, Paul M.
    Lucas, Adriana P.
    Moschetti, Wayne E.
    Jevsevar, David S.
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2019, 34 (12) : 2937 - 2943
  • [2] Do patient-reported outcome measures improve after aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty?
    Siddiqi, Ahmed
    Warren, Jared
    Anis, Hiba K.
    Barsoum, Wael K.
    Bloomfield, Michael R.
    Briskin, Isaac
    Brooks, Peter J.
    Higuera, Carlos A.
    Kamath, Atul F.
    Klika, Alison
    Krebs, Olivia
    Krebs, Viktor E.
    Mesko, Nathan W.
    Molloy, Robert M.
    Mont, Michael A.
    Murray, Trevor G.
    Muschler, George F.
    Patel, Preetesh
    Stearns, Kim L.
    Strnad, Gregory J.
    Suarez, Juan C.
    Piuzzi, Nicolas S.
    HIP INTERNATIONAL, 2023, 33 (02) : 267 - 279
  • [3] Predicting Outcome after Total Hip Arthroplasty: The Role of Preoperative Patient-Reported Measures
    Weber, Markus
    Zeman, Florian
    Craiovan, Benjamin
    Thieme, Max
    Kaiser, Moritz
    Woerner, Michael
    Grifka, Joachim
    Renkawitz, Tobias
    BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, 2019, 2019
  • [4] Patient-reported outcome measures after total knee arthroplasty A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
    Ramkumar, P. N.
    Harris, J. D.
    Noble, P. C.
    BONE & JOINT RESEARCH, 2015, 4 (07): : 120 - 127
  • [5] No clinically significant differences in patient-reported outcome measures across total hip arthroplasty approaches
    Kim, Andrew G.
    Rizk, Adam A.
    Chiu, Austin M.
    Zuke, William
    Acuna, Alexander J.
    Kamath, Atul F.
    HIP INTERNATIONAL, 2024, 34 (01) : 21 - 32
  • [6] Comparison of Responsiveness of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures After Total Knee Arthroplasty
    Vogel, Nicole
    Kaelin, Raphael
    Rychen, Thomas
    Wendelspiess, Severin
    Muller-Gerbl, Magdalena
    Arnold, Markus P.
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2024, 39 (06) : 1487 - 1495.e2
  • [7] Patient-reported outcome measures versus inertial performance-based outcome measures: A prospective study in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty
    Bolink, S. A. A. N.
    Grimm, B.
    Heyligers, I. C.
    KNEE, 2015, 22 (06) : 618 - 623
  • [8] Patient-Reported Outcome Measures are not a Valid Proxy for Patient Satisfaction in Total Joint Arthroplasty
    Halawi, Mohamad J.
    Jongbloed, Walter
    Baron, Samuel
    Savoy, Lawrence
    Cote, Mark P.
    Lieberman, Jay R.
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2020, 35 (02) : 335 - 339
  • [9] Patient-reported Outcome Measures of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Prosthetic Joint Infection is not Inferior to Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty
    Lim, J. B. T.
    Pang, H. N.
    Tay, K. J. D.
    Chia, S. L.
    Yea, S. J.
    Lo, N. N.
    MALAYSIAN ORTHOPAEDIC JOURNAL, 2020, 14 (03) : 73 - 81
  • [10] Impact of Age on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Total Knee Arthroplasty
    Townsend, Luke A.
    Roubion, Ryan C.
    Bourgeois, Devin M.
    Leonardi, Claudia
    Fox, Rabun S.
    Dasa, Vinod
    Pollock, Grant R.
    JOURNAL OF KNEE SURGERY, 2018, 31 (06) : 580 - 584