Patient-Reported Outcomes for Fractures of the Acetabulum: A Comparison Between Patient-Reported Outcomes Information System and Traditional Instruments

被引:8
|
作者
Schumaier, Adam P. [1 ]
Matar, Robert N. [1 ]
Ramalingam, Wendy G. [1 ]
Archdeacon, Michael T. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Cincinnati, Dept Orthopaed & Sports Med, Cincinnati, OH 45221 USA
关键词
MUSCULOSKELETAL FUNCTION ASSESSMENT; COMPUTER ADAPTIVE TEST; PROMIS; QUESTIONNAIRE; ORTHOPEDICS; PERFORMANCE; SHOULDER; SF-36;
D O I
10.5435/JAAOS-D-20-01324
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
Introduction: The objective of this study was to compare instruments from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Information System (PROMIS) with previously validated acetabulum fracture outcome instruments. Methods: This study included adult patients presenting for routine follow-up at least 3 months after surgical treatment of an acetabulum fracture. Participants completed four different patient-reported outcomes in a randomized order: PROMIS Mobility, PROMIS Physical Function, Short Form 36 (SF-36), and Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment (SMFA). Primary outcomes were the correlations between instruments, floor/ceiling effects, and survey completion time. The effects of age, education, and race on survey completion time were also evaluated. Results: Overall strong correlations were observed between PROMIS instruments and the SMFA/SF-36 (r = 0.73 to 0.86, P < 0.05) with weaker, more moderate correlations in those with >18 months of follow-up (r = 0.41 to 0.76, P < 0.05). No instruments demonstrated notable floor or ceiling effects. The PROMIS outcomes required less time to complete (PROMIS [56 to 59 seconds] than SF-36 [5 minutes 22 seconds] and SMFA [6 minutes 35 seconds]; P < 0.001). Older individuals required more time to complete the PROMIS PF (0.5 s/yr, P = 0.03), SF-36 (2.35 s/yr, P = 0.01), and SMFA (3.85 s/yr, P < 0.01). Level of education did not affect completion time; however, African Americans took significantly longer than Caucasians to complete the SMFA and SF-36 by 151 and 164 seconds (P < 0.01). Conclusion: This study supports that the PROMIS Mobility and Physical Function surveys are much more efficient instruments for evaluating patients with acetabulum fractures when compared with the SMFA and SF-36. Convergent validity of the PROMIS instruments was overall strong but weaker and more moderate in those with a long-term follow-up, and additional study is suggested for longer-term outcomes. Level of education did not influence survey completion time; however, it took markedly longer time for older individuals and African Americans to complete the SMFA and SF-36.
引用
收藏
页码:71 / 78
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Patient-Reported Outcomes in Supportive Care
    Bateman, Emma
    Keefe, Dorothy
    SEMINARS IN ONCOLOGY, 2011, 38 (03) : 358 - 361
  • [22] Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system instruments in knee arthroplasty patients: a systematic review of the literature
    Natalia Czerwonka
    Puneet Gupta
    Sohil S. Desai
    Thomas R. Hickernell
    Alexander L. Neuwirth
    David P. Trofa
    Knee Surgery & Related Research, 35
  • [23] Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System instruments: outperforming traditional quality of life measures in patients with back and neck pain
    Tishelman, Jared C.
    Vasquez-Montes, Dennis
    Jevotovsky, David S.
    Stekas, Nicholas
    Moses, Michael J.
    Karia, Raj J.
    Errico, Thomas
    Buckland, Aaron J.
    Protopsaltis, Themistocles S.
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2019, 30 (04) : 545 - 550
  • [24] Measurement of Upper Extremity Disability Using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System
    Doering, Anne-Carolin
    Nota, Sjoerd P. F. T.
    Hageman, Michiel G. J. S.
    Ring, David C.
    JOURNAL OF HAND SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2014, 39 (06): : 1160 - 1165
  • [25] Patient-reported outcomes in rehabilitation research: Instruments and current developments in Germany
    Moock J.
    Kohlmann T.
    Zwingmann C.
    Journal of Public Health, 2006, 14 (6) : 333 - 342
  • [26] Patient-reported outcomes in breast oncology: a review of validated outcome instruments
    Kanatas, Anastasios
    Velikova, Galina
    Roe, Brenda
    Horgan, Kieran
    Ghazali, Naseem
    Shaw, Richard J.
    Rogers, Simon N.
    TUMORI, 2012, 98 (06) : 678 - 688
  • [27] The Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System in Spine: A Systematic Review
    Young, Kelsey
    Steinhaus, Michael
    Gang, Catherine
    Vaishnav, Avani
    Jivanelli, Bridget
    Lovecchio, Francis
    Qureshi, Sheeraz
    McAnany, Steven
    Kim, Han Jo
    Iyer, Sravisht
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPINE SURGERY, 2021, 15 (01): : 186 - 194
  • [28] The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System in spine surgery: a systematic review
    Haws, Brittany E.
    Khechen, Benjamin
    Bawa, Mundeep S.
    Patel, Dil V.
    Bawa, Harmeet S.
    Bohl, Daniel D.
    Wiggins, Adam B.
    Cardinal, Kaitlyn L.
    Guntin, Jordan A.
    Singh, Kern
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2019, 30 (03) : 405 - 413
  • [29] Patient-Reported Outcomes for Spine Oncology: A Narrative Review
    Saha, Prasenjit
    Cady-McCrea, Clarke
    Puvanesarajah, Varun
    Mesfin, Addisu
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2024, 185 : 165 - 170
  • [30] Patient interpretations vary for questions in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity
    Azad, Chao Long
    Beres, Laura K.
    Wu, Albert W.
    Giladi, Aviram M.
    JOURNAL OF HAND SURGERY-EUROPEAN VOLUME, 2023, : 654 - 660