Original Article| Volume 36, ISSUE 12, P2992-2997, December 2020

Download started.


Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function Has a Lower Effect Size and is Less Responsive Than Legacy Hip Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures Following Arthroscopic Hip Surgery


      To compare the use and responsiveness of Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) to legacy patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) at 6-month follow-up.


      Data from patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy with routine capsular closure between August 2018 and January 2019 for the treatment of FAIS were analyzed. Preoperative outcomes, 6-month postoperative outcomes, and demographics were recorded. Primary outcome measures included PROMIS Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), PROMIS Pain Interference (PROMIS-PI), and PROMIS Depression. The legacy PROMs included Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), Hip Outcome Score Sport Subscale (HOS-SS), and the international hip outcome tool 12 questions (iHOT-12). Floor and ceiling effects along with the responsiveness and Cohen’s d effect size of each PROM tool were calculated.


      Ninety-six patients with an average age and body mass index of 32.4 ± 11.9 years and 25.9 ± 6.1 kg/m2, respectively, were included in the final analysis. All outcomes were significantly higher at 6 months compared with the preoperative level (P < .001) except for PROMIS Depression (P = .873). PROMIS-PF demonstrated excellent correlation with HOS-SS (r = 0.81; P < .001), very good correlation with HOS-ADL (r = 0.73; P < .001), and good correlation with iHOT-12 (r = 0.68; P < .001). No floor was observed for any measure. The effect size was large for all outcomes, except PROMIS Depression (d = 0.04), but largest for iHOT12 (d = 1.87) followed by HOS-ADL (d = 1.29). The iHOT-12 was more responsive than PROMIS-PI (relative efficiency [RE] = 3.95), PROMIS-PF (RE = 4.13), HOS-ADL (RE = 2.26), and HOS-SS (RE = 3.84). HOS-SS was similarly responsive to PROMIS-PI (RE=1.03) and PROMIS-PF (RE=1.08). However, PROMIS-PF was overall the least responsive.


      In patients at 6 months postoperatively from hip arthroscopy for FAIS, iHOT-12 was the most responsive and had the largest effect size. In contrast, PROMIS-PF had a lower effect size compared with legacy hip-specific PROMs. Additionally, PROMIS-PF did not correlate as well with iHOT-12 compared with HOS-SS.

      Level of Evidence

      Level IV, case series.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Arthroscopy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System
        Physical Function: A brief guide to the PROMIS Physical Function Instruments.
        (Available from)
        • Cella D.
        • Gershon R.
        • Lai J.-S.
        • Choi S.
        The future of outcomes measurement: item banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment.
        Qual Life Res. 2007; 16: 133-141
        • Fries J.F.
        • Witter J.
        • Rose M.
        • Cella D.
        • Khanna D.
        • Morgan-DeWitt E.
        Item response theory, computerized adaptive testing, and PROMIS: assessment of physical function.
        J Rheumatol. 2014; 41: 153-158
        • Wylie J.D.
        • Beckmann J.T.
        • Granger E.
        • Tashjian R.Z.
        Functional outcomes assessment in shoulder surgery.
        World J Orthop. 2014; 5: 623-633
        • Brodke D.J.
        • Saltzman C.L.
        • Brodke D.S.
        PROMIS for orthopaedic outcomes measurement.
        J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016; 24: 744-749
        • Anthony C.A.
        • Glass N.A.
        • Hancock K.
        • Bollier M.
        • Wolf B.R.
        • Hettrich C.M.
        Performance of PROMIS instruments in patients with shoulder instability.
        Am J Sports Med. 2017; 45: 449-453
        • Anthony C.A.
        • Glass N.
        • Hancock K.
        • Bollier M.
        • Hettrich C.M.
        • Wolf B.R.
        Preoperative performance of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system in patients with rotator cuff pathology.
        Arthroscopy. 2017; 33: 1770-1774
        • Dowdle S.B.
        • Glass N.
        • Anthony C.A.
        • Hettrich C.M.
        Use of PROMIS for patients undergoing primary total shoulder arthroplasty.
        Orthop J Sports Med. 2017; 5 (2325967117726044)
        • Hancock K.J.
        • Glass N.
        • Anthony C.A.
        • et al.
        PROMIS: a valid and efficient outcomes instrument for patients with ACL tears.
        Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019; 27: 100-104
        • Hancock K.J.
        • Glass N.
        • Anthony C.A.
        • et al.
        Performance of PROMIS for healthy patients undergoing meniscal surgery.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017; 99: 954-958
        • Kollmorgen R.C.
        • Hutyra C.A.
        • Green C.
        • Lewis B.
        • Olson S.A.
        • Mather R.C.
        Relationship between PROMIS computer adaptive tests and legacy hip measures among patients presenting to a tertiary care hip preservation center.
        Am J Sports Med. 2019; 47: 876-884
        • Nwachukwu B.U.
        • Beck E.C.
        • Chapman R.
        • Chahla J.
        • Okoroha K.
        • Nho S.J.
        Preoperative performance of the PROMIS in patients undergoing hip arthroscopic surgery for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome.
        Orthop J Sports Med. 2019; 7 (2325967119860079)
        • Dowie J.
        • Kaltoft M.K.
        Why a global PROMIS® can’t be kept.
        Stud Health Technol Inform. 2019; 262: 114-117
        • Griffin D.R.
        • Dickenson E.J.
        • O’Donnell J.
        • et al.
        The Warwick Agreement on femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAI syndrome): an international consensus statement.
        Br J Sports Med. 2016; 50: 1169-1176
        • Byrd J.W.T.
        • Jones K.S.
        Hip arthroscopy in the presence of dysplasia.
        Arthroscopy. 2003; 19: 1055-1060
        • Martin R.L.
        • Kelly B.T.
        • Philippon M.J.
        Evidence of validity for the hip outcome score.
        Arthroscopy. 2006; 22: 1304-1311
        • Nwachukwu B.U.
        • Chang B.
        • Beck E.C.
        • et al.
        How should we define clinically significant outcome improvement on the iHOT-12?.
        HSS J. 2019; 15: 103-108
        • Nwachukwu B.U.
        • Chang B.
        • Adjei J.
        • et al.
        Time required to achieve minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement.
        Am J Sports Med. 2018; 46: 2601-2606
        • Chen C.X.
        • Kroenke K.
        • Stump T.E.
        • et al.
        Estimating minimally important differences for the PROMIS pain interference scales: results from 3 randomized clinical trials.
        Pain. 2018; 159: 775-782
        • Kendall R.
        • Wagner B.
        • Brodke D.
        • et al.
        The relationship of PROMIS pain interference and physical function scales.
        Pain Med. 2018; 19: 1720-1724
        • Clover K.
        • Lambert S.D.
        • Oldmeadow C.
        • et al.
        PROMIS depression measures perform similarly to legacy measures relative to a structured diagnostic interview for depression in cancer patients.
        Qual Life Res. 2018; 27: 1357-1367
        • Terwee C.B.
        • Bot S.D.M.
        • de Boer M.R.
        • et al.
        Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60: 34-42
        • Liang M.H.
        • Larson M.G.
        • Cullen K.E.
        • Schwartz J.A.
        Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research.
        Arthritis Rheum. 1985; 28: 542-547
        • Nilsdotter A.K.
        • Roos E.M.
        • Westerlund J.P.
        • Roos H.P.
        • Lohmander L.S.
        Comparative responsiveness of measures of pain and function after total hip replacement.
        Arthritis Rheum. 2001; 45: 258-262
        • Unger R.Z.
        • Burnham J.M.
        • Gammon L.
        • Malempati C.S.
        • Jacobs C.A.
        • Makhni E.C.
        The responsiveness of patient-reported outcome tools in shoulder surgery is dependent on the underlying pathological condition.
        Am J Sports Med. 2019; 47: 241-247
        • Cohen J.
        Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.
        Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, Mahwah, NJ1988
        • Dunlap W.
        • Cortina J.
        • Vaslow J.
        • Burke M.
        Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs.
        Psychol Methods. 1996; 1: 170-177
        • Sheean A.J.
        • Schmitz M.R.
        • Ward C.L.
        • et al.
        Assessment of disability related to femoroacetabular impingement syndrome by use of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Information System (PROMIS) and objective measures of physical performance.
        Am J Sports Med. 2017; 45: 2476-2482
        • Norman G.R.
        • Sloan J.A.
        • Wyrwich K.W.
        Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation.
        Med Care. 2003; 41: 582-592
        • Baumann F.
        • Popp D.
        • Müller K.
        • et al.
        Validation of a German version of the International Hip Outcome Tool 12 (iHOT12) according to the COSMIN checklist.
        Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016; 14: 3

      Linked Article