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

被引:7
|
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
下载
收藏
页码:71 / 78
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Relationship Between the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System and Traditional Patient-Reported Outcomes for Osteoarthritis
    Padilla, Jorge A.
    Rudy, Hayeem L.
    Gabor, Jonathan A.
    Friedlander, Scott
    Iorio, Richard
    Karia, Raj J.
    Slover, James D.
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2019, 34 (02): : 265 - 272
  • [2] Patient-Reported Outcomes Instruments Preface
    Chung, Kevin C.
    Pusic, Andrea L.
    CLINICS IN PLASTIC SURGERY, 2013, 40 (02) : XI - XII
  • [3] Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Tools for Collecting Patient-Reported Outcomes in Children With Juvenile Arthritis
    Brandon, Timothy G.
    Becker, Brandon D.
    Bevans, Katherine B.
    Weiss, Pamela F.
    ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH, 2017, 69 (03) : 393 - 402
  • [4] Patient-reported outcomes
    Garratt, Andrew
    TIDSSKRIFT FOR DEN NORSKE LAEGEFORENING, 2015, 135 (07) : 668 - 668
  • [5] Standardizing patient-reported outcomes assessment in cancer clinical trials: A patient-reported outcomes measurement information system initiative
    Garcia, Sofia F.
    Cella, David
    Clauser, Steven B.
    Flynn, Kathryn E.
    Lad, Thomas
    Lai, Jin-Shei
    Reeve, Bryce B.
    Smith, Ashley Wilder
    Stone, Arthur A.
    Weinfurt, Kevin
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2007, 25 (32) : 5106 - 5112
  • [6] Relationship Between the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System and Traditional Patient-Reported Outcomes for Osteoarthritis (vol 34, pg 265, 2019)
    Padilla, Jorge A.
    Rudy, Hayeem L.
    Gabor, Jonathan A.
    Friedlander, Scott
    Iorio, Richard
    Karia, Raj J.
    Slover, James D.
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2019, 34 (05): : 1046 - 1046
  • [7] Patient-reported outcomes Recording and evaluating patient-reported endpoints
    Hilser, Thomas
    Darr, Christopher
    Gruenwald, Viktor
    ONKOLOGIE, 2022, 28 (10): : 940 - 946
  • [8] Validity and Reliability of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Instruments in Osteoarthritis
    Broderick, Joan E.
    Schneider, Stefan
    Junghaenel, Doerte U.
    Schwartz, Joseph E.
    Stone, Arthur A.
    ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH, 2013, 65 (10) : 1625 - 1633
  • [9] THE PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES MEASUREMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM IN SPANISH
    Arnold, B. J.
    Correia, H.
    Perez, B.
    Lent, L.
    Cella, D.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2013, 16 (07) : A711 - A711
  • [10] Telemedizinische Erfassung von „patient-reported outcomes“Remote monitoring of patient-reported outcomes
    V. Siefert
    G. Welzel
    M. Blessing
    L. Jahnke
    J. Hesser
    F. Wenz
    F. A. Giordano
    Forum, 2018, 33 (2) : 94 - 100