Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The performance of PROMIS computer adaptive testing for patient-reported outcomes in hip fracture surgery: a pilot study

  • Trauma Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are essential to patient-centered care in orthopaedics. PROMIS measures have demonstrated reliability, validity, responsiveness, and minimal floor and ceiling effects in various populations of patients receiving orthopaedic care but have not yet been examined in hip fracture patients. This pilot study sought to evaluate the psychometric performance of the PROMIS Physical Function (PROMIS PF) and Pain Interference (PROMIS PI) computer adaptive tests and compare these instruments with legacy outcome measures in hip fracture patients.

Methods

This study included 67 patients who were 27–96 years old (median 76) and underwent osteosynthesis for a proximal femoral fracture. At 3, 6, and/or 12 months follow-up, patients completed both legacy (mHHS, SF-36-PCS, and VAS for pain) and PROMIS questionnaires (PROMIS PF and PROMIS PI). Respondent burden and floor/ceiling effects were calculated for each outcome measure. Correlation was calculated to determine concurrent validity between related constructs.

Results

A strong correlation was found between PROMIS PF and mHHS (rho = 0.715, p < 0.001) and moderately strong correlation between PROMIS PF and SF-36 PCS (rho = 0.697, p < 0.001). There was also a moderately strong correlation between the VAS and the PROMIS PI (rho = 0.641, p < 0.001). Patients who completed PROMIS PF were required to answer significantly fewer questions as compared with legacy PROMs (mHHS, SF-36). For the PROMIS measures, 1% of patients completing PROMIS PF achieved the highest allowable score while 34% of patients completing PROMIS PI achieved the lowest allowable score. Of the legacy outcome measures, 31% of patients completing the VAS for pain achieved the lowest allowable score and 7% of patients completing the mHHS achieved the highest allowable score.

Conclusions

The results of this study support the validity of PROMIS CATs for use in hip fracture patients. The PROMIS PF was significantly correlated with SF-36 PCS and mHHS while requiring fewer question items per patient relative to the legacy outcome measures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR et al (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rose M, Bjorner JB, Becker J et al (2008) Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supported the expected advantages of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). J Clin Epidemiol 61:17–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.06.025

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cella D, Gershon R, Lai J-S, Choi S (2007) The future of outcomes measurement: item banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment. Qual Life Res 16:133–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9204-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brodke DJ, Saltzman CL, Brodke DS (2016) PROMIS for orthopaedic outcomes measurement. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 24:744–749. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-15-00404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Beckmann JT, Hung M, Bounsanga J et al (2015) Psychometric evaluation of the PROMIS physical function computerized adaptive test in comparison to the american shoulder and elbow surgeons score and simple shoulder test in patients with rotator cuff disease. J Shoulder Elb Surg 24:1961–1967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2015.06.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ho B, Houck JR, Flemister AS et al (2016) Preoperative PROMIS scores predict postoperative success in foot and ankle patients. Foot Ankle Int 37:911–918. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100716665113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kim C-Y, Wiznia DH, Averbukh L et al (2016) PROMIS computer adaptive tests compared with time to brake in patients with complex lower extremity trauma. J Orthop Trauma 30:592–596. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000000645

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Makhni EC, Meadows M, Hamamoto JT et al (2017) Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) in the upper extremity: the future of outcomes reporting? J Shoulder Elb Surg 26:352–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.09.054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Overbeek CL, Nota SPFT, Jayakumar P et al (2015) The PROMIS physical function correlates with the QuickDASH in patients with upper extremity illness. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:311–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3840-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Papuga MO, Mesfin A, Molinari R, Rubery PT (2016) Correlation of PROMIS physical function and pain CAT instruments with oswestry disability index and neck disability index in spine patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41:1153–1159. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Morgan JH, Kallen MA, Okike K et al (2015) PROMIS physical function computer adaptive test compared with other upper extremity outcome measures in the evaluation of proximal humerus fractures in patients older than 60 years. J Orthop Trauma 29:257–263. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000000280

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gausden EB, Levack AE, Sin DN et al (2018) Validating the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computerized adaptive tests for upper extremity fracture care. J Shoulder Elb Surg 27:1191–1197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.01.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gausden EB, Levack A, Nwachukwu BU et al (2018) Computerized adaptive testing for patient reported outcomes in ankle fracture surgery. Foot Ankle Int. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100718782487

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Rothrock NE, Kaat AJ, Vrahas MS et al (2019) Validation of PROMIS physical function instruments in patients with an orthopaedic trauma to a lower extremity. J Orthop Trauma 33:377–383. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000001493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hung M, Saltzman CL, Greene T et al (2017) Evaluating instrument responsiveness in joint function: the HOOS JR, the KOOS JR, and the PROMIS PF CAT. J Orthop Res 36:1178–1184. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.23739

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Haywood KL, Brett J, Tutton E, Staniszewska S (2017) Patient-reported outcome measures in older people with hip fracture: a systematic review of quality and acceptability. Qual Life Res 26:799–812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1424-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM et al (1992) Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ 305:160–164

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Aitken RC (1969) Measurement of feelings using visual analogue scales. Proc R Soc Med 62:989–993

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Hung M, Hon SD, Cheng C et al (2014) Psychometric evaluation of the lower extremity computerized adaptive test, the modified harris hip score, and the hip outcome score. Orthop J Sport Med 2:232596711456219. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967114562191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Shoukri MM, Mohamed M, Edge VL, Victoria L (1996) Statistical methods for health sciences. CRC Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  21. Senders A, Hanes D, Bourdette D et al (2014) Reducing survey burden: feasibility and validity of PROMIS measures in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 20:1102–1111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458513517279

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Hung M, Stuart AR, Higgins TF et al (2014) Computerized adaptive testing using the PROMIS physical function item bank reduces test burden with less ceiling effects compared with the short musculoskeletal function assessment in orthopaedic trauma patients. J Orthop Trauma 28:439–443. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000000059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tyser AR, Beckmann J, Franklin JD et al (2014) Evaluation of the PROMIS physical function computer adaptive test in the upper extremity. J Hand Surg Am 39:2047-2051.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.06.130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gausden E, Garner MR, Fabricant PD et al (2017) Do clinical outcomes correlate with bone density after open reduction and internal fixation of tibial plateau fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137:755–760. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2679-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wamper KE, Sierevelt IN, Poolman RW et al (2010) The Harris hip score: do ceiling effects limit its usefulness in orthopedics? Acta Orthop 81:703–707. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2010.537808

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Scott EJ, Westermann R, Glass NA et al (2018) Performance of the PROMIS in patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Orthop J Sport Med 6:2325967118774509. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967118774509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hancock KJ, Glass N, Anthony CA et al (2017) Performance of PROMIS for healthy patients undergoing meniscal surgery. J Bone Jt Surg 99:954–958. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.00848

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study did not receive any external funding. None of the authors, their immediate families, and any research foundation with which they are affiliated received any financial payments or other benefits from any commercial entity related to the subject of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Academic Training, Orthopaedic Trauma Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, 8th Floor, New York, NY, 10021, USA

    Aleksey Dvorzhinskiy, Elizabeth B. Gausden, Ashley E. Levack & Naomi E. Gadinsky

  2. Sports and Shoulder Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA

    Benedict U. Nwachukwu

  3. Biostatistics, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA

    Joseph Nguyen

  4. Orthopaedic Trauma Service, Hospital for Special Surgery and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA

    David S. Wellman & Dean G. Lorich

Authors
  1. Aleksey Dvorzhinskiy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elizabeth B. Gausden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ashley E. Levack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Benedict U. Nwachukwu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joseph Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Naomi E. Gadinsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. David S. Wellman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Dean G. Lorich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aleksey Dvorzhinskiy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article received IRB approval for human participation.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Deceased: Dean G. Lorich.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dvorzhinskiy, A., Gausden, E.B., Levack, A.E. et al. The performance of PROMIS computer adaptive testing for patient-reported outcomes in hip fracture surgery: a pilot study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 142, 417–424 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03640-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03640-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation