PROMIS UE Research Articles

The Relationship Between Patient-Reported Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction With Ligament Reconstruction Tendon Interposition

Achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) on an outcomes instrument and reporting satisfaction with surgical outcomes are not equivalent. We hypothesized that improvement exceeding the QuickDASH and PROMIS UE CAT MCID is associated with a greater likelihood of reporting satisfaction with ligament reconstruction tendon interposition (LRTI) treatment. Our secondary hypothesis was that a subset of patients failing to meet MCID would still be satisfied. Patients ≥1 year after LRTI at one academic tertiary institution were included. QuickDASH and UE CAT v1.2 scores were obtained before and after surgery. Postoperative satisfaction and levels of improvement in pain and function were also obtained. A total of 93 patients completed the QuickDASH, and of those, 90 also completed the UE CAT. At a mean of 2.6 ± 1.0 years after surgery, QuickDASH and UE CAT score improvement exceeded the previously published MCID estimates of 8.8 and 4.8. Although 90% (84/93) of the patients reported satisfaction, only 85% (72/93) and 72% (59/90) achieved MCID on the QuickDASH and UE CAT, respectively. Using the MCID estimate of 8.8, 96% (72/75) of the patients meeting the MCID were satisfied with their treatment. Those failing to achieve MCID reported significantly less physical function and pain improvement; however, most were satisfied nonetheless (68% [13/19] for QuickDASH, 77% [23/30] for UE CAT). Achieving published MCID thresholds on the QuickDASH and PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 was predictive of patients reporting general satisfaction with their LRTI outcome ≥1 year after surgery. Most patients failing to achieve MCID still reported satisfaction with their LRTI. Achieving MCID thresholds alone should not be used as a surrogate for patient satisfaction with their treatment. Patient satisfaction is a complicated construct that is potentially very different from that of high-quality care. Prognostic IV.

Preoperative Psychometric Properties of PROMIS Upper Extremity, Pain Interference, and Depression in Bankart Repair and Rotator Cuff Repair (115)

Objectives:To examine the preoperative and postoperative performance of PROMIS Upper Extremity 2.0 across various orthopedic procedures for the upper extremity. Secondarily, to define susceptibility to pre- and post-operative floor and ceiling effects.Methods:Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected patient-reported outcome (PRO) data was conducted utilizing an electronic outcome registry for procedures between May 2017 and August 2018. Current procedural terminology (CPT) codes were utilized to examine cohorts for various upper extremity orthopedic procedures including Bankart repair and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). Shapiro-Wilks normality testing was used to assess score distributions for normalcy; given non-normal score distributions, Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated for preoperative patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores. Absolute floor and ceiling effects were calculated for each time point based on CPT code.Results:A total of 488 patients were included across Bankart repair (n=109, 29.3 + 12.5 years) and ARCR (n=379, 57.5 + 9.5 years) cohorts. In the Bankart repair cohort, PROMIS PI demonstrate strong correlations with ASES (r=-0.63), Constant (r=-0.75), PROMIS UE (r=-0.75), and the VR6D (r=-0.61). PROMIS Depression (r=0.23 vs. 0.17), SF12 MCS (r=0.34 vs. 0.11), and VR12 MCS (r=0.44 vs. 0.15) exhibited poor correlations with PROMIS PI and UE, respectively. In the ARCR cohort, PROMIS PI scores demonstrated a good correlation with PROMIS UE (r=0.61). Constant (r=0.58 vs. 0.67), VR12 PCS (r=0.58 vs. 0.47), and VR6D (r=0.67 vs. 0.53) exhibited good correlations with both PROMIS PI and UE measures, respectively. No significant absolute floor or ceiling effects were observed for the PROMIS instruments except PROMIS Depression; an absolute floor was noted for both Bankart (n=12, 30%) and ARCR (n=38, 14.7%) groups.Conclusions:PROMIS PI and UE instruments perform comparably to legacy outcome instruments in patients receiving Bankart repair, as well as those receiving ARCR. Furthermore, in both populations, the PROMIS Depression instrument exhibits absolute floor effects, whereas PROMIS PI and UE instruments fail to demonstrate any absolute floor or ceiling effects.

Early Psychological and Social Factors Explain the Recovery Trajectory After Distal Radial Fracture.

This prospective study identified the association of demographic, injury, psychological, and social variables, measured early during recovery, with limitations in function (measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity Physical Function Computer Adaptive Test [PROMIS UE]) at 6 to 9 months after a distal radial fracture. Additionally, we assessed variables associated with the PROMIS UE; the abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH); the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE); and the 3-Level EuroQol 5 Dimensions Index (EQ-5D-3L) over time. A total of 364 adult patients (73% female), with a median age of 65 years (interquartile range, 45.5 to 77 years), who sustained an isolated distal radial fracture completed questionnaires at 3 time periods after the fracture: within 1 week, between 2 and 4 weeks, and between 6 and 9 months. We created a multivariable regression model and a generalized least squares random effects model, accounting for multicollinearity using correlation matrices, the variable inflation factor, and the partial R. Multiple variables within a week of the injury correlated with 6 to 9-month limitations in bivariate analysis. Being retired (partial R = 0.19; p < 0.001), using opioids after the fracture (partial R = 0.04; p < 0.001), using antidepressants (partial R = 0.11; p < 0.001), greater pain interference (partial R = 0.03; p = 0.001), and greater pain catastrophization (partial R = 0.04; p = 0.002) within 1 week of the injury were strong predictors of greater limitations (PROMIS UE) at 6 to 9 months in multivariable analysis. Longitudinal analysis of variables over time demonstrated greater pain interference, greater fear of movement, lower self-efficacy, older age, and female sex as strong predictors of limitations. Recovery from a distal radial fracture is influenced by a series of demographic, psychological, and social variables. Of these factors, being retired, using opioids, using antidepressants, greater pain interference, and greater pain catastrophization within a week of the injury explain the largest amounts of unique variance in self-perceived upper-extremity physical function. Evaluating the impact of change in variables over time underlined the influence of pain interference as well as the influence of fear of movement and self-efficacy (or resiliency) on limitations in physical function and general health. These findings have important implications for identifying individuals who can benefit from behavioral interventions for these psychological factors to optimize recovery. Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The Serially-Operated Essex-Lopresti Injury: Long-Term Outcomes in a Retrospective Cohort

Objective The main aim of this article is to report 10-year outcomes after Essex-Lopresti injury (ELI).Study Design Retrospective case series. Two level I trauma centers and one associated community hospital from 2003 to 2016.Patients Sixteen patients who sustained an ELI and were treated at one of our three regional hospitals.Intervention Initially, 4 patients (25%) were treated nonoperatively by immobilization and 12 patients (75%) were treated operatively. Proximal surgery included radial head open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), radial head arthroplasty, radial head excision and forearm ORIF, and wound debridement. Ten patients (63%) were acutely identified with longitudinal forearm instability. Of these, four patients had the distal radioulnar joint pinned. In the other six patients, the forearm was immobilized. Overall, 16 patients underwent a total of 32 revision surgeries.Main Outcome Measure Performance of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity (PROMIS UE) Physical score, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score for pain-severity, and NRS score for satisfaction of overall outcome.Results Follow-up for outcome evaluation was available for 10 patients, at a median of 10 (interquartile range [IQR]: 8.0–12) years after date of injury. The median PROMIS UE Physical score was 36 (IQR: 33–38). Median NRS score for pain-severity on average was 5 (IQR: 0–6). The median NRS score for satisfaction of overall outcome was 7 (IQR: 5–8).Conclusion Patients who sustain an ELI generally have substantial deficits of upper extremity function as measured by PROMIS UE. Early radial head arthroplasty may be beneficial, but further study in a larger cohort is needed. Outcomes of nonoperative treatment and operative treatment were similar and suggest that current surgical treatments are incomplete.

Construct Validity and Precision of Different Patient-reported Outcome Measures During Recovery After Upper Extremity Fractures.

Patient perceptions of their limitations after illness and injury can be quantified using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Few studies have assessed construct validity (using correlations and factor analysis) and precision (floor and ceiling effects) of a range of frequently used PROMs longitudinally in a population of patients recovering from common upper extremity fractures according to area (general health, region-specific, or joint-specific measures) and mode of administration (fixed-scale or computer adaptive test). (1) What is the strength of the correlation between different PROMs within 1 week, 2 to 4 weeks and 6 to 9 months after shoulder, elbow, and wrist fractures? (2) Using a factor analysis, what underlying constructs are being measured by these PROMs? (3) Are there strong floor and ceiling effects with these instruments? Between January 2016 and August 2016, 734 patients recovering from an isolated shoulder, elbow, or wrist fracture completed physical-limitation PROMs at baseline (the initial office visit after diagnosis in the emergency department), 2 to 4 weeks after injury, and at the final assessment 6 to 9 months after injury. In all, 775 patients were originally approached; 31 patients (4%) declined to participate due to time constraints, four patients died of unrelated illness, and six patients were lost to follow-up. The PROMs included the PROMIS Physical Function (PF, a computer adaptive, general measure of physical function), the PROMIS Upper Extremity (UE, a computer adaptive measure of upper extremity physical function), the QuickDASH (a fixed-scale, region-specific measure), the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), the Oxford Elbow Score (OES) and the Patient-rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) (a fixed-scale, joint-specific measure), and the EQ-5D-3L (a fixed-scale measure of general health). PROMs were evaluated during recovery for construct validity (using correlations and factor analysis) and precision (using floor and ceiling effects). Physical-limitation PROMs were intercorrelated at all time points, and the correlation strengthened over time (for example, PROMIS UE and QuickDASH at 1 week, r = -0.4665; at 2 to 4 weeks, r = -0.7763; at 6 to 9 months, r = -0.8326; p < 0.001). Factor analysis generated two factors or groupings of PROMs that could be described as capability (perceived ability to perform or engage in activities), and quality of life (an overall sense of health and wellbeing) that varied by time point and fracture type, Joint-specific and general-health PROMs demonstrated high ceiling effects 6 to 9 months after injury and PROMIS PF, PROMIS UE and QuickDASH had no floor or ceiling effects at any time points. There is a substantial correlation between PROMs that assess physical limitations (based on anatomic region) and general health after upper extremity fractures, and these relationships strengthen during recovery. Regardless of the delivery mode or area of focus, PROMs largely appear to represent two underlying constructs: capability and quality of life. Computer adaptive tests may be favored over fixed-scale measures for their efficiency and limited censoring. Level II, therapeutic study.

The PROMIS Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test Correlates With Previously Validated Metrics in Patients With Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Background: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity (PROMIS UE) computer adaptive test was developed to improve precision and reduce question burden. We hypothesized that in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS): (1) PROMIS UE would correlate with established patient-reported outcome measures (PROs); (2) the time and number of questions required would be lower than current metrics; (3) there would be no floor or ceiling effects; and (4) PROMIS UE would not correlate with disease severity. Methods: Patients undergoing electrodiagnostic evaluation found to have a primary diagnosis of unilateral CTS prospectively completed PROMIS UE, Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (qDASH), and Boston Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Questionnaire (BCTQ). Electrophysiologic and clinical severity was recorded. The relationships among PROs were described with Spearman coefficients. A floor or ceiling effect was confirmed if >15% of patients achieved the lowest or highest possible score, respectively. Results: Fifty-one patients (average, 53.9 years) were enrolled. An excellent correlation was identified between PROMIS UE and qDASH (R = -0.76, P < .001). There was a good correlation between PROMIS UE and BCTQ (R = -0.58, P < 0.001). The PROMIS UE required less time and fewer questions than qDASH and BCTQ (P = .02 and P < .001). There were no floor or ceiling effects. Neither neurophysiologic nor clinical severity correlated with PROMIS UE (R = 0.24, P > .05 and R = -0.18, P > .05). Conclusions: The PROMIS UE has an excellent correlation with qDASH and a good correlation with BCTQ in patients with CTS. Furthermore, PROMIS UE required less time and fewer questions than established PROs. Used as a single PRO, PROMIS UE represents a practical alternative to current metrics in patients with CTS.

Relationship Between Magnitude of Limitations and Patient Experience During Recovery from Upper-Extremity Fracture.

Background:The relationship between the magnitude of limitations (measured by patient-reported outcome measures, or PROMs) and satisfaction with care providers and hospital services (measured by patient-reported experience measures, or PREMs) over the course of recovery after injury is unclear. The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between a range of PROMs and 2 PREMs at 3 time points (initial office visit within a week, 2 to 4 weeks, and 6 to 9 months) after shoulder, elbow, and wrist fractures.Methods:We enrolled 744 adult patients with an isolated shoulder, elbow, or wrist fracture and invited them to complete PROMs (the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity Physical Function computer adaptive test [PROMIS UE], PROMIS Physical Function (PROMIS PF) scale, Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand [QuickDASH] questionnaire, EuroQol 5-Dimensions 3-Level Index [EQ-5D-3L], and Oxford Shoulder Score [OSS], Oxford Elbow Score [OES], or Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation [PRWE]) and PREMs (Numerical Rating Scale [NRS] for satisfaction with care providers [NRS-C] and for satisfaction with hospital services [NRS-S]) at their initial visit at the outpatient surgical practice (maximum, 1 week after the fracture), between 2 and 4 weeks after the injury, and between 6 and 9 months after the injury. Correlational analysis was performed at each time point.Results:There was moderate correlation between the PROMIS UE and the NRS-C (r = 0.56) and NRS-S (r = 0.59) at 6 to 9 months after injury, which was stronger than the correlation at the 2 to 4-week mark (NRS-C, r = 0.34; NRS-S, r = 0.36) and at the evaluation that took place within a week after the injury (NRS-C, r = 0.18; NRS-S, r = 0.16). These correlational trends were observed with all forms of PROMs. Patients reporting greater limitations after injury were also less satisfied with their care and services.Conclusions:The increasing alignment of PROMs and PREMs over the course of recovery after an upper-extremity fracture suggests that restored physical function may improve perceptions of satisfaction with care providers and hospital services over time. Future studies should assess factors that could be addressed to improve patient satisfaction and their limitations during recovery after fracture in order to maximize patient outcomes.Level of Evidence:Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The responsiveness of the PROMIS instruments and the qDASH in an upper extremity population

BackgroundThis study evaluated the responsiveness of several PROMIS patient-reported outcome measures in patients with hand and upper extremity disorders and provided comparisons with the qDASH instrument.MethodsThe PROMIS Upper Extremity computer adaptive test (UE CAT) v1.2, the PROMIS Physical Function (PF) CAT v1.2, the PROMIS Pain Interference (PI) CAT v1.1 and the qDASH were administered to patients presenting to an orthopaedic hand clinic during the years 2014–2016, along with anchor questions. The responsiveness of these instruments was assessed using anchor based methods. Changes in functional outcomes were evaluated by paired-sample t-test, effect size, and standardized response mean.ResultsThere were a total of 255 patients (131 females and 124 males) with an average age of 50.75 years (SD = 15.84) included in our study. Based on the change and no change scores, there were three instances (PI at 3 months, PI >3 months, and qDASH >3 months follow-ups) where scores differed between those experiencing clinically meaningful change versus no clinically meaningful change. Effect sizes for the responsiveness of all instruments were large and ranged from 0.80–1.48. All four instruments demonstrated high responsiveness, with a standardized response mean ranging from 1.05 to 1.63.ConclusionThe PROMIS UE CAT, PF CAT, PI CAT, and qDASH are responsive to patient-reported functional change in the hand and upper extremity patient population.

The relationship between therapist–rated function and patient-reported outcome measures

Study DesignProspective cohort study. IntroductionSome third-party payers require hand therapists to rate patient's functional disability based on patient self-rating using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), objective measurements of impairment, and observation of functional tasks—hand therapist–rated function (HTRF). Purpose of the StudyTo test the correlation between HTRF and PROMs (upper limb functional index [ULFI] and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System upper extremity [PROMIS UE]) and its association with psychological factors. MethodsIn 2014, 100 new patients with upper extremity illness presenting to hand therapists were asked to participate in an observational cross-sectional study. Demographic-, condition-related, and psychological factors were obtained in addition to PROMs and HTRF. ResultsHTRF correlated moderately with PROMIS UE (r = −0.49, P < .001) and ULFI (r = −0.56, P < .001). Correlation between PROMIS UE and ULFI was strong (r = 0.78, P < .001). Psychological factors explained most of the variations in both HTRF and PROMs. ConclusionsHand therapists' ratings of patient function correlate less strongly with PROMs than PROMs correlate with one other. The discrepancy between HTRF and PROMs may offer an opportunity to address stress, distress, or ineffective coping strategies that can interfere with recovery—an opportunity for therapists and patients to collaborate and develop goals and for future research to develop effective and feasible strategies for hand therapists. Level of EvidenceLevel II, diagnostic study.