Advertisement

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is Not as Responsive as Legacy Scores in Detecting Patient Outcomes in Hip Preservation: a Systematic Review

      Abstract

      Purpose

      To evaluate publication trends of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) in hip preservation literature, assess the usage of PROMIS as an outcome measure, and evaluate correlations of all available published PROMIS domains with legacy patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

      Methods

      The PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar databases were queried for articles evaluating PROMIS scores among hip preservation populations. Inclusion criteria consisted of studies with Level IV evidence or above (per the Sackett et al. levels of evidence), such as case series and cohort studies, reporting on perioperative use of hip PROMIS scores. Exclusion criteria consisted of arthroplasty and trauma studies. Patient demographics, PROMIS usage, and PROMIS Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficients to historic PROs were recorded for each study.

      Results

      Fifteen articles published between 2017 and 2021 were included in the analysis, with the majority (75%) published between 2020 and 2021. Studies assessing postoperative outcomes had follow-up periods ranging from 6 months to 5 years. The most common PROMIS domain reported was Physical Function (PF) and there was varying usage of other domains including Pain Intensity, Anxiety, and Depression. PROMIS validity was most often assessed in comparison to the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) by calculating the Pearson coefficient, which assumes normal data distribution, or Spearman coefficient, which is rank-based and does not require normal data distribution. Studies comparing PROMIS-PF with mHHS reported Pearson coefficients ranging from 0.49-0.72 and Spearman coefficients ranging from 0.67-0.71.

      Conclusions

      There has been a chronologic increase in PROMIS usage in hip preservation literature. PROMIS demonstrates moderate-to-strong correlations with legacy PROs, but there is substantial heterogeneity in follow-up periods, PROMIS domains used, and statistical methodology. The current data show that PROMIS is not as responsive as historically used, validated PROs in quantitatively assessing function and pain in hip preservation patients.
      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

        • Mosher Z.A.
        • Ewing M.A.
        • Collins C.S.
        • et al.
        Usage trends of patient-reported outcome measures in shoulder literature.
        J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020; 28: e774-e781https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-19-00455
        • Tang F.
        • Dai W.B.
        • Li X.L.
        • Turghun D.
        • Huang H.
        • Fan Y.Q.
        Publication trends and hot spots in femoroacetabular impingement research: a 20-year bibliometric analysis.
        J Arthroplasty. 2021; 36: 2698-2707https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.03.019
        • Laucis N.C.
        • Hays R.D.
        • Bhattacharyya T.
        Scoring the SF-36 in orthopaedics: a brief guide.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015; 97: 1628-1634https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.O.00030
        • Smith M.J.
        • Reiter M.J.
        • Crist B.D.
        • Schultz L.G.
        • Choma T.J.
        Improving patient satisfaction through computer-based questionnaires.
        Orthopedics. 2016; 39: e31-35https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20151218-07
        • Tijssen M.
        • van Cingel R.
        • van Melick N.
        • de Visser E.
        Patient-reported outcome questionnaires for hip arthroscopy: a systematic review of the psychometric evidence.
        BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011; 12: 117https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-12-117
        • Lapin B.R.
        • Honomichl R.
        • Thompson N.
        • et al.
        Patient-reported experience with patient-reported outcome measures in adult patients seen in rheumatology clinics.
        Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil. 2021; 30: 1073-1082https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02692-2
        • Klavas D.M.
        • Duplantier N.
        • Gerrie B.
        • et al.
        Patient-reported outcome score utilisation in arthroscopic hip preservation: we are all doing it differently, if at all.
        J ISAKOS. 2020; 5: 213-217https://doi.org/10.1136/jisakos-2018-000223
        • Gagnier J.J.
        • Johnston B.C.
        Poor quality patient reported outcome measures bias effect estimates in orthopaedic randomized studies.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 116: 36-38https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.07.012
        • Arguelles G.R.
        • Shin M.
        • Lebrun D.G.
        • Kocher M.S.
        • Baldwin K.D.
        • Patel N.M.
        The majority of patient-reported outcome measures in pediatric orthopaedic research are used without validation.
        J Pediatr Orthop. 2021; 41: e74-e79https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000001659
        • Browning R.B.
        • Alter T.D.
        • Clapp I.M.
        • Mehta N.
        • Nho S.J.
        Patients require less time to complete preoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) than legacy patient-reported outcome measures.
        Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2021; 3: e1413-e1419https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2021.06.011
        • 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: 153-158https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.130813
        • Wylie J.D.
        • Beckmann J.T.
        • Granger E.
        • Tashjian R.Z.
        Functional outcomes assessment in shoulder surgery.
        World J Orthop. 2014; 5: 623-633https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v5.i5.623
        • Wamper K.E.
        • Sierevelt I.N.
        • Poolman R.W.
        • Bhandari M.
        • Haverkamp D.
        The Harris hip score: do ceiling effects limit its usefulness in orthopedics?.
        Acta Orthop. 2010; 81: 703-707https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2010.537808
        • Bykerk V.P.
        Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System versus legacy instruments.
        Rheum Dis Clin N Am. 2019; 45: 211-229https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rdc.2019.01.006
        • Hung M.
        • Stuart A.R.
        • Higgins T.F.
        • Saltzman C.L.
        • Kubiak E.N.
        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. 2014; 28: 439-443https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000000059
        • Tyser A.R.
        • Beckmann J.
        • Franklin J.D.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of the PROMIS physical function computer adaptive test in the upper extremity.
        J Hand Surg. 2014; 39 (e4): 2047-2051https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.06.130
        • Ziedas A.C.
        • Abed V.
        • Swantek A.J.
        • et al.
        Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function instruments compare favorably with legacy patient-reported outcome measures in upper- and lower-extremity orthopaedic patients: a systematic review of the literature.
        Arthroscopy. 2022; 38: 609-631https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2021.05.031
      1. PROMIS Bank v2.0 - Physical Function. HealthMeasures. Published November 29, 2016. Accessed March 14, 2022. https://www.healthmeasures.net/index.php?option=com_instruments&view=measure&id=789&Itemid=992

        • Hung M.
        • Clegg D.O.
        • Greene T.
        • Saltzman C.L.
        Evaluation of the PROMIS physical function item bank in orthopaedic patients.
        J Orthop Res. 2011; 29: 947-953https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.21308
        • Hung M.
        • Clegg D.O.
        • Greene T.
        • Weir C.
        • Saltzman C.L.
        A lower extremity physical function computerized adaptive testing instrument for orthopaedic patients.
        Foot Ankle Int. 2012; 33: 326-335https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI.2012.0326
        • Collis R.W.
        • McCullough A.B.
        • Ng C.
        • et al.
        Rate of surgery and baseline characteristics associated with surgery progression in young athletes with prearthritic hip disorders.
        Orthop J Sports Med. 2020; 8https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967120969863
        • Moher D.
        • Liberati A.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Group T.P.
        Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement.
        PLoS Med. 2009; 6e1000097https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
        • Sackett D.L.
        • Rosenberg W.M.
        • Gray J.A.
        • Haynes R.B.
        • Richardson W.S.
        Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t.
        BMJ. 1996; 312: 71-72https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71
      2. Clarivate Home - It starts with an idea. Clarivate. Accessed September 6, 2021. https://clarivate.com/

        • Slim K.
        • Nini E.
        • Forestier D.
        • Kwiatkowski F.
        • Panis Y.
        • Chipponi J.
        Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument.
        ANZ J Surg. 2003; 73: 712-716https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1445-2197.2003.02748.x
      3. QUADAS-2. University of Bristol. Accessed February 27, 2022. https://www.bristol.ac.uk/population-health-sciences/projects/quadas/quadas-2/

        • Guo B.
        • Moga C.
        • Harstall C.
        • Schopflocher D.
        A principal component analysis is conducted for a case series quality appraisal checklist.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 69: 199-207.e2https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.07.010
        • McHugh M.L.
        Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic.
        Biochem Medica. 2012; 22: 276-282
        • Schober P.
        • Boer C.
        • Schwarte L.A.
        Correlation coefficients: Appropriate use and interpretation.
        Anesth Analg. 2018; 126: 1763-1768https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864
        • 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: 2476-2482https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546517708793
        • Livermore A.T.
        • Anderson L.A.
        • Anderson M.B.
        • Erickson J.A.
        • Peters C.L.
        Correction of mildly dysplastic hips with periacetabular osteotomy demonstrates promising outcomes, achievement of correction goals, and excellent five-year survivorship.
        Bone Jt J. 2019; 101 B: 16-22https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.101B6.BJJ-2018-1487.R1
        • 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: 3280-3287https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546520960461
        • Scott E.J.
        • Willey M.C.
        • Mercado A.
        • Davison J.
        • Wilken J.M.
        Assessment of disability related to hip dysplasia using objective measures of physical performance.
        Orthop J Sports Med. 2020; 8https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967120903290
        • 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: 2457-2465https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465211015687
        • Ellis T.
        • Kohlrieser D.
        • Rao B.
        • Enseki K.
        • Popchak A.
        • Martin R.R.L.
        A comparison of 6-month outcomes between periacetabular osteotomy with concomitant hip arthroscopy to isolated hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement.
        Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2022; 142: 471-480https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-03886-0
        • Hartwell M.J.
        • Morgan A.M.
        • Nelson P.A.
        • et al.
        Isolated acetabuloplasty for femoroacetabular impingement: favorable patient-reported outcomes and sustained survivorship at minimum 5-year follow-up.
        Arthroscopy. 2021; 37: 3288-3294https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2021.03.080
        • 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: 876-884https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546518825252
        • Nwachukwu B.U.
        • Rasio J.
        • Beck E.C.
        • et al.
        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: 2992-2997https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2020.07.008
        • 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; 72325967119860079https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967119860079
        • Wynn M.
        • Shamrock A.
        • Khazi Z.
        • Westermann R.
        • Willey M.
        Validity of PROMIS physical function in patients with hip dysplasia treated with periacetabular osteotomy.
        J Hip Preserv Surg. 2019; 6: 406-410https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnz047
        • Li D.J.
        • Clohisy J.C.
        • Schwabe M.T.
        • Yanik E.L.
        • Pascual-Garrido C.
        PROMIS versus legacy patient-reported outcome measures in patients undergoing surgical treatment for symptomatic acetabular dysplasia.
        Am J Sports Med. 2020; 48: 385-394https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546519894323
        • 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; 13e13265https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.13265
        • Ousmen A.
        • Touraine C.
        • Deliu N.
        • et al.
        Distribution- and anchor-based methods to determine the minimally important difference on patient-reported outcome questionnaires in oncology: a structured review.
        Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018; 16: 228https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-1055-z
        • Cella D.
        • Riley W.
        • Stone A.
        • et al.
        The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005-2008.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63: 1179-1194https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011
        • Nelson T.A.
        • Anderson B.
        • Bian J.
        • et al.
        Planning for patient-reported outcome implementation: development of decision tools and practical experience across four clinics.
        J Clin Transl Sci. 2020; 4: 498-507https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2020.37
        • Fidai M.S.
        • Saltzman B.M.
        • Meta F.
        • et al.
        Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system and legacy patient-reported outcome measures in the field of orthopaedics: a systematic review.
        Arthroscopy. 2018; 34: 605-614https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2017.07.030
        • Horn M.E.
        • Reinke E.K.
        • Couce L.J.
        • Reeve B.B.
        • Ledbetter L.
        • George S.Z.
        Reporting and utilization of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures in orthopedic research and practice: a systematic review.
        J Orthop Surg. 2020; 15https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-02068-9
        • Skare Ø.
        • Mowinckel P.
        • Schrøder C.P.
        • Liavaag S.
        • Reikerås O.
        • Brox J.I.
        Responsiveness of outcome measures in patients with superior labral anterior and posterior lesions.
        Shoulder Elbow. 2014; 6: 262-272https://doi.org/10.1177/1758573214534650
        • 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: 3https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0407-9
        • Stasi S.
        • Papathanasiou G.
        • Diochnou A.
        • Polikreti B.
        • Chalimourdas A.
        • Macheras G.A.
        Modified Harris Hip Score as patient-reported outcome measure in osteoarthritic patients: psychometric properties of the Greek version.
        Hip Int. 2021; 31: 516-525https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700020901682
        • Porter A.M.
        Misuse of correlation and regression in three medical journals.
        J R Soc Med. 1999; 92: 123-128https://doi.org/10.1177/014107689909200306
        • Franovic S.
        • Gulledge C.M.
        • Kuhlmann N.A.
        • Williford T.H.
        • Chen C.
        • Makhni E.C.
        Establishing “Normal” Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function and Pain Interference scores: a true reference score according to adults free of joint pain and disability.
        JBJS Open Access. 2019; 4e0019https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.19.00019
        • Tyser A.R.
        • Hung M.
        • Bounsanga J.
        • Voss M.W.
        • Kazmers N.H.
        Evaluation of version 2.0 of the PROMIS Upper Extremity computer adaptive test in non-shoulder upper extremity patients.
        J Hand Surg. 2019; 44: 267-273https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2019.01.008
        • Nwachukwu B.U.
        • Beck E.C.
        • Kunze K.N.
        • Chahla J.
        • Rasio J.
        • Nho S.J.
        Defining the clinically meaningful outcomes for arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome at minimum 5-year follow-up.
        Am J Sports Med. 2020; 48: 901-907https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546520902736
        • Browning R.B.
        • Clapp I.M.
        • Alter T.D.
        • Nwachukwu B.U.
        • Nho S.J.
        Pain catastrophizing and kinesiophobia affect return to sport in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement.
        Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2021; 3: e1087-e1095https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2021.03.014
        • Martin R.L.
        • Christoforetti J.J.
        • McGovern R.
        • et al.
        The impact of depression on patient outcomes in hip arthroscopic surgery.
        Orthop J Sports Med. 2018; 62325967118806490https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967118806490
        • Sochacki K.R.
        • Brown L.
        • Cenkus K.
        • Di Stasi S.
        • Harris J.D.
        • Ellis T.J.
        Preoperative depression is negatively associated with function and predicts poorer outcomes after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement.
        Arthroscopy. 2018; 34: 2368-2374https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2018.03.020
        • Le A.
        • Han B.H.
        • Palamar J.J.
        When national drug surveys “take too long”: an examination of who is at risk for survey fatigue.
        Drug Alcohol Depend. 2021; 225108769https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.108769