Advertisement

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Mobility Computerized Adaptive Testing Maintains High Correlation and Low Test Burden Compared With Legacy Hip-Specific Instruments in Patients Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement

      Purpose

      To evaluate the reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness of the lower extremity–specific Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Mobility (MO) bank in patients who underwent hip arthroscopic surgery for femoroacetabular impingement.

      Methods

      Patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopic surgery at a large academic musculoskeletal specialty center between November 2019 and November 2020 completed the following baseline and 6-month measures: PROMIS MO, PROMIS Pain Interference (PI), PROMIS Physical Function (PF), modified Harris Hip Score, International Hip Outcome Tool 33, visual analog scale, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation. Construct validity was evaluated using Spearman correlation coefficients. The number of questions until completion was recorded as a marker of test burden. The percentage of patients scoring at the extreme high (ceiling) or low (floor) for each measure was recorded to measure inclusivity. Responsiveness was tested by comparing differences between baseline and 6-month measures, controlling for age and sex, using generalized estimating equations. Magnitudes of responsiveness were assessed through the effect size (Cohen d).

      Results

      In this study, 660 patients (50% female patients) aged 32 ± 14 years were evaluated. PROMIS MO showed a strong correlation with PROMIS PF (r = 0.84, P < .001), the International Hip Outcome Tool 33 (r = 0.73, P < .001), PROMIS PI (r = –0.76, P < .001), and the modified Harris Hip Score (r = 0.73, P < .001). Neither PROMIS MO, PROMIS PI, nor PROMIS PF met the conventional criteria for floor or ceiling effects (≥15%). The mean number of questions answered (± standard deviation) was 4.7 ± 2.1 for PROMIS MO, 4.1 ± 0.6 for PROMIS PI, and 4.1 ± 0.6 for PROMIS PF. From baseline to 6 months, the PROMIS and legacy measures exhibited significant responsiveness (P < .05), with similar effect sizes between the patient-reported outcome measures.

      Conclusions

      This longitudinal study reveals that in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy, PROMIS MO computerized adaptive testing maintains high correlation with legacy hip-specific instruments, significant responsiveness to change, and low test burden compared with legacy measures, with no ceiling or floor effects at 6-month postoperative follow-up.

      Level of Evidence

      Level IV, retrospective 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:

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

      References

        • Deshpande P.R.
        • Rajan S.
        • Sudeepthi B.L.
        • Abdul Nazir C.P.
        Patient-reported outcomes: A new era in clinical research.
        Perspect Clin Res. 2011; 2: 137-144
        • Hoppe D.J.
        • Bhandari M.
        Evidence-based orthopaedics: A brief history.
        Indian J Orthop. 2008; 42: 104-110
        • 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.
        • Rose M.
        • Krishnan E.
        The PROMIS of better outcome assessment: Responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects, and Internet administration.
        J Rheumatol. 2011; 38: 1759-1764
        • Fries J.F.
        • Bruce B.
        • Cella D.
        The promise of PROMIS: Using item response theory to improve assessment of patient-reported outcomes.
        Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2005; 23: S53-S57
        • Hung M.
        • Stuart A.R.
        • Higgins T.F.
        • Saltman C.L.
        • Kubiak E.N.
        Computerized adaptive testing using the PROMIS physical function item bank reduces test burden with less ceiling effects compared to the short musculoskeletal function assessment in orthopaedic trauma patients.
        J Orthop Trauma. 2014; 28: 439-443
        • Hung M.
        • Baumhauer J.F.
        • Brodsky J.W.
        • et al.
        Psychometric comparison of the PROMIS physical function CAT with the FAAM and FFI for measuring patient-reported outcomes.
        Foot Ankle Int. 2014; 35: 592-599
        • Hung M.
        • Baumhauer J.F.
        • Latt L.D.
        • et al.
        Validation of PROMIS (R) Physical Function computerized adaptive tests for orthopaedic foot and ankle outcome research.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 471: 3466-3474
        • 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
        • 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
        • Scott E.J.
        • Westermann R.
        • Glass N.A.
        • Hettrich C.
        • Wolf B.R.
        • Bollier M.J.
        Performance of the PROMIS in patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
        Orthop J Sports Med. 2018; 62325967118774509
        • 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.e1
        • Anthony C.A.
        • Glass N.A.
        • Hancock K.J.
        • 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
        • Beaton D.E.
        • Katz J.N.
        • Fossel A.H.
        • Wright J.G.
        • Tarasuk V.
        • Bombardier C.
        Measuring the whole or the parts? Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity.
        J Hand Ther. 2001; 14: 128-146
        • Kaat A.J.
        • Buckenmaier III, C.T.
        • Cook K.F.
        • et al.
        The expansion and validation of a new upper extremity item bank for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System(R) (PROMIS).
        J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2019; 3: 69
        • Hays R.D.
        • Spritzer K.L.
        • Amtmann
        • et al.
        Upper-extremity and mobility subdomains from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) adult physical functioning item bank.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013; 94: 2291-2296
        • Kollmorgen R.C.
        • Hutyra C.A.
        • Green C.
        • Lewis B.
        • Olson S.A.
        • Mather III, 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.
        • Chang B.
        • Beck E.C.
        • et al.
        How should we define clinically significant outcome improvement on the iHOT-12?.
        HSS J. 2019; : 103-108
        • Cohen J.
        Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
        Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ1988
        • Unger R.Z.
        • Burnham J.M.
        • Gammon L.
        • et al.
        The responsiveness of patient-reported outcome tools in shoulder surgery is dependent on the underlying pathological condition.
        Am J Sports Med. 2019; : 241-247
        • Kremers H.M.
        • Schilz S.R.
        • Van Houten H.K.
        • et al.
        Trends in utilization and outcomes of hip arthroscopy in the United States between 2005 and 2013.
        J Arthroplasty. 2017; 32: 750-755
        • Stone A.V.
        • Jacobs C.A.
        • Luo T.D.
        • et al.
        High degree of variability in reporting of clinical and patient-reported outcomes after hip arthroscopy.
        Am J Sports Med. 2018; 46: 3040-3046
        • Childs S.
        • Canham C.
        • Kenney R.J.
        • Silas D.R.
        • Adler K.
        • Giordano B.D.
        Correlation of PROMIS CAT with validated hip outcome scores in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy.
        Orthop J Sports Med. 2017; 5 (suppl 6).2325967117S00451
        • Hung M.
        • Hon S.D.
        • Cheng C.
        • et al.
        Psychometric evaluation of the lower extremity computerized adaptive test, the modified Harris Hip Score, and the Hip Outcome Score.
        Orthop J Sports Med. 2014; 22325967114562191
        • 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
        • Gerlach E.
        • Selley R.
        • Johnson D.
        • et al.
        Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system validation in hip arthroscopy: A shift towards reducing survey burden.
        Cureus. 2021; 13e13265
        • Bodendorfer B.M.
        • Clapp I.M.
        • Browning R.B.
        • Alter T.D.
        • Nwachukwu B.U.
        • Nho S.J.
        Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system test is less responsive than legacy hip-specific patient-reported outcome measures in patients undergoing arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome.
        Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2021; 3: e1645-e1650
        • Nwachukwu B.U.
        • Rasio J.
        • Beck E.C.
        • Okoroha K.R.
        • Sullivan S.W.
        • Makhni E.C.
        • Nho S.J.
        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.
        Arthroscopy. 2020; 36: 2992-2997
        • Bido J.
        • Sullivan S.W.
        • Dooley M.S.
        • et al.
        PROMIS Global-10 poorly correlates with legacy outcomes for patients undergoing hip arthroscopy.
        J Hip Preserv Surg. 2021; 8: 67-74
        • Trasolini N.A.
        • Korber S.
        • Gipsman A.
        • San A.E.
        • Weber A.E.
        • Rick Harch III, G.F.
        Performance of PROMIS computer adaptive testing as compared with established instruments for multiple-ligament knee injuries.
        Orthop J Sports Med. 2019; 72325967119867419
        • Rothrock N.E.
        • Kaat A.J.
        • Vrahas M.S.
        • et al.
        Validation of PROMIS physical function instruments in patients with an orthopaedic trauma to a lower extremity.
        J Orthop Trauma. 2019; 33: 377-383
        • Bodendorfer B.M.
        • DeFroda S.F.
        • Clapp I.M.
        • Newhouse A.
        • Nwachukwu B.U.
        • Nho S.J.
        Defining clinically significant improvement on the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system test at 1-year follow-up for patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome.
        Am J Sports Med. 2021; 49: 2457-2465
        • Kuhns B.D.
        • Reuter J.
        • Lawton D.
        • Kenney R.J.
        • Baumhauer J.F.
        • Giordano B.D.
        Threshold values for success after hip arthroscopy using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Assessment: Determining the minimum clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptomatic state.
        Am J Sports Med. 2020; 48: 3280-3287