Display options
Cite
Brodke DJ, Zhang C, Shaw JD, et al. How Do PROMIS Scores Correspond to Common Physical Abilities?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2021;doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002046.
Brodke, D. J., Zhang, C., Shaw, J. D., Cizik, A. M., Saltzman, C. L., & Brodke, D. S. (2021). How Do PROMIS Scores Correspond to Common Physical Abilities?. Clinical orthopaedics and related research, . https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000002046
Brodke, Dane J, et al. "How Do PROMIS Scores Correspond to Common Physical Abilities?." Clinical orthopaedics and related research vol. (2021). doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000002046
Brodke DJ, Zhang C, Shaw JD, Cizik AM, Saltzman CL, Brodke DS. How Do PROMIS Scores Correspond to Common Physical Abilities?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2021 Nov 17; doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002046. Epub 2021 Nov 17. PMID: 34855330.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2021 Nov 17; doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002046. Epub 2021 Nov 17.

How Do PROMIS Scores Correspond to Common Physical Abilities?.

Clinical orthopaedics and related research

Dane J Brodke, Chong Zhang, Jeremy D Shaw, Amy M Cizik, Charles L Saltzman, Darrel S Brodke

Affiliations

  1. University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

PMID: 34855330 DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002046

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Report Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is increasingly used as a general-purpose tool for measuring orthopaedic surgery outcomes. This set of questionnaires is efficient, precise, and correlates well with specialty-specific measures, but impactful implementation of patient-specific data, especially at the point of care, remains a challenge. Although clinicians may have substantial experience with established patient-reported outcome measures in their fields, PROMIS is relatively new, and the real-life meaning of PROMIS numerical summary scores may be unknown to many orthopaedic surgeons.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We aimed to (1) identify a small subset of important items in the PROMIS Physical Function (PF) item bank that are answered by many patients with orthopaedic conditions and (2) graphically display characteristic responses to these items across the physical function spectrum in order to translate PROMIS numerical scores into physical ability levels using clinically relevant, familiar terms.

METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, 97,852 PROMIS PF assessments completed by 37,517 patients with orthopaedic conditions presenting to a tertiary-care academic institution were pooled and descriptively analyzed. Between 2017 and 2020, we evaluated 75,354 patients for outpatient orthopaedic care. Of these, 67% (50,578) were eligible for inclusion because they completed a PROMIS version 2.0 physical function assessment; 17% (12,720) were excluded because they lacked information in the database on individual item responses, and another < 1% (341) were excluded because the assessment standard error was greater than 0.32, leaving 50% of the patients (37,517) for analysis. The PROMIS PF is scored on a 0-point to 100-point scale, with a population mean of 50 and SD of 10. Anchor-based minimum clinically important differences have been found to be 8 to 10 points in a foot and ankle population, 7 to 8 points in a spine population, and approximately 4 points in a hand surgery population. The most efficient and precise means of administering the PROMIS PF is as a computerized adaptive test (CAT), whereby an algorithm intelligently tailors each follow-up question based on responses to previous questions, requiring only a few targeted questions to generate an accurate result. In this study, the mean PROMIS PF score was 41 ± 9. The questions most frequently used by the PROMIS CAT software were identified (defined in this study as any question administered to > 0.1% of the cohort). To understand the ability levels of patients based on their individual scores, patients were grouped into score categories: < 18, 20 ± 2, 25 ± 2, 30 ± 2, 35 ± 2, 40 ± 2, 45 ± 2, 50 ± 2, 55 ± 2, 60 ± 2, and > 62. For each score category, the relative frequency of each possible response (ranging from "cannot do" to "without any difficulty") was determined for each question. The distribution of responses given by each score group for each question was graphically displayed to generate an intuitive map linking PROMIS scores to patient ability levels (with ability levels represented by how patients responded to the PROMIS items).

RESULTS: Twenty-eight items from the 165-question item bank were used frequently (that is, administered to more than 0.1% of the cohort) by the PROMIS CAT software. The top four items constituted 63% of all items. These top four items asked about the patient's ability to perform 2 hours of physical labor, yard work, household chores, and walking more than 1 mile. Graphical displays of responses to the top 28 and top four items revealed how PROMIS scores correspond to patient ability levels. Patients with a score of 40 most frequently responded that they experienced "some difficulty" with physical labor, yard work, household chores, and walking more than 1 mile, compared with "little" or "no" difficulty for patients with a score of 50 and "cannot do" for patients with a score of 30.

CONCLUSION: We provided a visual key linking PROMIS numerical scores to physical ability levels using clinically relevant, familiar terms. Future studies might investigate whether using similar graphical displays as a patient education tool enhances patient-provider communication and improves the patient experience.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The visual explanation of PROMIS scores provided by this study may help new users of the PROMIS understand the instrument, feel empowered to incorporate it into their practices, and use it as a tool for counseling patients about their scores.

Copyright © 2021 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.

Conflict of interest statement

Each author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest

References

  1. Bartlett SJ, De Leon E, Orbai AM, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in RA care improve patient communication, decision-making, satisfaction and confidence: qualitative results. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2020;59:1662-1670. - PubMed
  2. Berliner JL, Brodke DJ, Chan V, SooHoo NF, Bozic KJ. John Charnley Award: preoperative patient-reported outcome measures predict clinically meaningful improvement in function after THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474:321-329. - PubMed
  3. Berliner JL, Brodke DJ, Chan V, SooHoo NF, Bozic KJ. Can preoperative patient-reported outcome measures be used to predict meaningful improvement in function after TKA? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475:149-157. - PubMed
  4. Bernstein DN, Fear K, Mesfin A, et al. Patient-reported outcomes use during orthopaedic surgery clinic visits improves the patient experience. Musculoskeletal Care. 2019;17:120-125. - PubMed
  5. Bhatt S, Davis K, Manning DW, Barnard C, Peabody TD, Rothrock NE. Integration of patient-reported outcomes in a total joint arthroplasty program at a high-volume academic medical center. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2020;4:e2000034. - PubMed
  6. Brodke DJ, Hung M, Bozic KJ. Item response theory and computerized adaptive testing for orthopaedic outcomes measures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016;24:750-754. - PubMed
  7. Brodke DJ, Saltzman CL, Brodke DS. PROMIS for orthopaedic outcomes measurement. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016;24:744-749. - PubMed
  8. Bruce B, Fries JF, Ambrosini D, et al. Better assessment of physical function: item improvement is neglected but essential. Arthritis Res Ther. 2009;11:R191. - PubMed
  9. Cheung EC, Moore LK, Flores SE, Lansdown DA, Feeley BT, Zhang AL. Correlation of PROMIS with orthopaedic patient-reported outcome measures. JBJS Rev. 2019;7:e9. - PubMed
  10. Fidai MS, Saltzman BM, 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;34:605-614. - PubMed
  11. Hung M, Baumhauer JF, Licari FW, Voss MW, Bounsanga J, Saltzman CL. PROMIS and FAAM minimal clinically important differences in foot and ankle orthopedics. Foot Ankle Int. 2019;40:65-73. - PubMed
  12. Hung M, Saltzman CL, Kendall R, et al. What are the MCIDs for PROMIS, NDI, and ODI instruments among patients with spinal conditions? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018;476:2027-2036. - PubMed
  13. Joeris A, Knoll C, Kalampoki V, Blumenthal A, Gaskell G. Patient-reported outcome measurements in clinical routine of trauma, spine and craniomaxillofacial surgeons: between expectations and reality: a survey among 1212 surgeons. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e020629. - PubMed
  14. Lee DJ, Calfee RP. The minimal clinically important difference for PROMIS Physical Function in patients with thumb carpometacarpal arthritis. Hand (N Y). 2021;16:638-643. - PubMed
  15. Lizzio VA, Dekhne MS, Makhni EC. Electronic patient-reported outcome collection systems in orthopaedic clinical practice. JBJS Rev. 2019;7:e2. - PubMed
  16. Luijten MAJ, van Litsenburg RRL, Terwee CB, Grootenhuis MA, Haverman L. Psychometric properties of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) pediatric item bank peer relationships in the Dutch general population. Qual Life Res. 2021;30:2061-2070. - PubMed
  17. MOTION Group. Patient-reported outcomes in orthopaedics. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100:436-442. - PubMed
  18. Noonan VK, Lyddiatt A, Ware P, et al. Montreal Accord on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) use series - paper 3: patient-reported outcomes can facilitate shared decision-making and guide self-management. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;89:125-135. - PubMed
  19. Rose M, Bjorner JB, Gandek B, Bruce B, Fries JF, Ware JE. The PROMIS Physical Function item bank was calibrated to a standardized metric and shown to improve measurement efficiency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:516-526. - PubMed
  20. Sandvall B, Okoroafor UC, Gerull W, Guattery J, Calfee RP. Minimal clinically important difference for PROMIS Physical Function in patients with distal radius fractures. J Hand Surg Am. 2019;44:454-459.e1. - PubMed
  21. Shaw JD, McEntarfer R, Ferrel J, et al. What does your PROMIS score mean? Improving the utility of patient-reported outcomes at the point of care. Global Spine J. 2020; 10.1177/2192568220958670. - PubMed
  22. United States Census Bureau. QuickFacts. Available at: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219. Accessed September 24, 2021. - PubMed

Publication Types