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
  • [21] Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after elective hip, knee and shoulder arthroplasty: protocol for a prospective cohort study
    Grassi, Alberto
    Golinelli, Davide
    Tedesco, Dario
    Rolli, Maurizia
    Bordini, Barbara
    Amabile, Marilina
    Rucci, Paola
    Fantini, Maria Pia
    Zaffagnini, Stefano
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2019, 20 (01)
  • [22] Adjusting for Variation in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Is Needed to Improve Care After Total Knee Arthroplasty
    Solberg, Leif, I
    Chrenka, Ella
    Asche, Steve E.
    Johnson, Paul G.
    Ziegenfuss, Jeanette Y.
    Horst, Patrick K.
    Cunningham, Brian P.
    Reams, Megan
    Swiontkowski, Marc F.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS, 2022, 30 (02) : E164 - E172
  • [23] Patient reported outcome measures correlate with step-count in total hip arthroplasty
    Orsi, Alexander D.
    Mathew, Manu
    Plaskos, Christopher
    Wakelin, Edgar A.
    Slotkin, Eric M.
    Coffey, Simon
    Ponder, Corey E.
    Keggi, John K.
    McMahon, Stephen J.
    TECHNOLOGY AND HEALTH CARE, 2024, 32 (05) : 3727 - 3736
  • [24] Socioeconomic inequalities in patient-reported outcome measures of Dutch primary hip and knee arthroplasty patients for osteoarthritis
    Bonsel, Joshua M.
    Reijman, Max
    Verhaar, Jan A. N.
    van Steenbergen, Liza N.
    Janssen, Mathieu F.
    Bonsel, Gouke J.
    OSTEOARTHRITIS AND CARTILAGE, 2024, 32 (02) : 200 - 209
  • [25] The association between body mass index and patient-reported outcome measures before and after primary total hip or knee arthroplasty: a registry
    Mulford, Jonathan S.
    Ackerman, Ilana
    Holder, Carl
    Cashman, Kara S.
    Graves, Stephen E.
    Harris, Ian A.
    ANZ JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2023, 93 (06) : 1665 - 1673
  • [26] Same but Different? Exploring the Role of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Clinician-Reported Outcome Measures in Postoperative Knee and Hip Arthroplasty Rehabilitation
    Unger, Alexandra
    Pruefer, Ferdinand
    Matko, Spela
    Fischer, Michael J.
    Grote, Vincent
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2025, 14 (07)
  • [27] How to Raise the Bar in the Capture of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Total Joint Arthroplasty
    Rullan, Pedro J.
    Pasqualini, Ignacio
    Zhang, Chao
    Klika, Alison K.
    Piuzzi, Nicolas S.
    JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2024, 106 (10) : 879 - 890
  • [28] Clinical relevance of patient-reported outcome measures in patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review
    Migliorini, Filippo
    Maffulli, Nicola
    Memminger, Michael Kurt
    Simeone, Francesco
    Rath, Bjoern
    Huber, Thorsten
    ARCHIVES OF ORTHOPAEDIC AND TRAUMA SURGERY, 2024, 144 (11) : 4907 - 4916
  • [29] Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE)-a promising and valid measuring tool related to patient-reported outcome measures (PROM)
    Oergel, Marcus
    Graulich, Tilman
    Liodakis, Emmanouil
    ORTHOPADE, 2022, 51 (04): : 333 - 336
  • [30] Reliability and validity of commonly used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
    Deng, Wang
    Shao, Hongyi
    Zhou, Yixin
    Li, Hua
    Wang, Zhaolun
    Huang, Yong
    ORTHOPAEDICS & TRAUMATOLOGY-SURGERY & RESEARCH, 2022, 108 (08)