본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system instruments in knee arthroplasty patients: a systematic review of the literature

Puneet Gupta|David P. Trofa|Alexander L. Neuwirth|Natalia Czerwonka|Sohil S. Desai|Thomas R. Hickernell
대한슬관절학회 (Korean Knee Society)|2023.12|Knee Surgery and Related Research|제35권 |pp. 27-27|DOI 10.1186/s43019-023-00201-6

1

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

초록

The purpose of this study is to provide a systematic review of the literature pertaining to Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) validation and utilization as an outcomes metric in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients. This is the first systematic review on PROMIS use in total knee arthroplasty patients.A systematic search of the Pubmed/MEDLINE and Embase databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Study characteristics, patient demographics, psychometric properties (Pearson and Spearman correlation) with legacy patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) instruments, floor and ceiling effects, responsiveness, and minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and PROMIS outcomes were recorded and analyzed. Fifteen studies investigating PROMIS in 11,140 patients were included. The weighted-average Pearson correlation coefficient comparing PROMIS domains with legacy patient-reported outcome measurements in total knee arthroplasty patients was 0.62 [standard error (SE) = 0.06] and the weighted-average Spearman correlation comparing PROMIS domains with legacy patient-reported outcome measurements in total knee arthroplasty patients was 0.59 (SE = 0.06), demonstrating moderate-to-strong correlation and validity. There were no differences in weighted average floor [0.03% (SE = 3.1) versus 0% (SE = 0.1) versus 0.01% (SE = 1.1); p = 0.25] or ceiling effects [0.01% (SE = 0.7) versus 0.02% (SE = 1.4) versus 0.04% (SE = 3.5); p = 0.36] between PROMIS and legacy instruments. The weighted average for percentage of patients achieving MCID was 59.1% for global physical health (GPH), 26.0% for global mental health (GMH), 52.7% for physical function (PF), 67.2% for pain interference (PI), and 37.2% for depression. Notably, PROMIS global physical health, physical function, and pain interference were found to be significantly responsive, with PROMIS pain interference most effectively capturing clinical improvement as evidenced by the achievement of MCID.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to provide a systematic review of the literature pertaining to Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) validation and utilization as an outcomes metric in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients. This is the first systematic review on PROMIS use in total knee arthroplasty patients.A systematic search of the Pubmed/MEDLINE and Embase databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Study characteristics, patient demographics, psychometric properties (Pearson and Spearman correlation) with legacy patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) instruments, floor and ceiling effects, responsiveness, and minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and PROMIS outcomes were recorded and analyzed. Fifteen studies investigating PROMIS in 11,140 patients were included. The weighted-average Pearson correlation coefficient comparing PROMIS domains with legacy patient-reported outcome measurements in total knee arthroplasty patients was 0.62 [standard error (SE) = 0.06] and the weighted-average Spearman correlation comparing PROMIS domains with legacy patient-reported outcome measurements in total knee arthroplasty patients was 0.59 (SE = 0.06), demonstrating moderate-to-strong correlation and validity. There were no differences in weighted average floor [0.03% (SE = 3.1) versus 0% (SE = 0.1) versus 0.01% (SE = 1.1); p = 0.25] or ceiling effects [0.01% (SE = 0.7) versus 0.02% (SE = 1.4) versus 0.04% (SE = 3.5); p = 0.36] between PROMIS and legacy instruments. The weighted average for percentage of patients achieving MCID was 59.1% for global physical health (GPH), 26.0% for global mental health (GMH), 52.7% for physical function (PF), 67.2% for pain interference (PI), and 37.2% for depression. Notably, PROMIS global physical health, physical function, and pain interference were found to be significantly responsive, with PROMIS pain interference most effectively capturing clinical improvement as evidenced by the achievement of MCID.

참고문헌 (36)

  1. Black N, "Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare", BMJ, 346(7896), pp.1~5 (2013)[DOI]
  2. Franklin PD, "Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in US total joint replacement registries : rationale, status, and plans", J Bone Jt Surg Am, 96, pp.104~109 (2014)[DOI]
  3. Franklin PD, "Incorporating patient-reported outcomes in total joint arthroplasty registries : challenges and opportunities", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 471(11), pp.3482~3488 (2013)[DOI]
  4. Lizzio VA, "Feasibility of PROMIS cat administration in the ambulatory sports medicine clinic with respect to cost and patient compliance : a single-surgeon experience", Orthop J Sport Med, 7(1), pp.1~6 (2019)[DOI]
  5. Hung M, "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, 28(8), pp.439~444 (2014)[DOI]
  6. Hancock KJ, "PROMIS : a valid and efficient outcomes instrument for patients with ACL tears", Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc, 27(1), pp.100~104 (2019)[DOI]
  7. Gerlach E, "Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system validation in hip arthroscopy : a shift towards reducing survey burden", Cureus (2021)[DOI]
  8. Sabah SA, "Patient-reported outcome measures following revision knee replacement : a review of PROM instrument utilisation and measurement properties using the COSMIN checklist", BMJ Open (2021)[DOI]
  9. Lakey E, "Patient-reported outcomes in foot and ankle orthopedics", Foot Ankle Orthop (2019)[DOI]
  10. Fidai MS, "Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system and legacy patient-reported outcome measures in the field of orthopaedics : a systematic review", Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg, 34(2), pp.605~614 (2018)[DOI]
  11. Koltsov JCB, "Validation of patient-reported outcomes measurement information system computerized adaptive tests against the foot and ankle outcome score for 6 common foot and ankle pathologies", Foot Ankle Int, 38(8), pp.870~878 (2017)[DOI]
  12. Rose M, "Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supported the expected advantages of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System(PROMIS)", J Clin Epidemiol, 61(1), pp.17~33 (2008)[DOI]
  13. Ho B, "Preoperative PROMIS scores predict postoperative success in foot and ankle patients", Foot Ankle Int, 37(9), pp.911~918 (2016)[DOI]
  14. Hung M, "Validation of PROMIS® physical function computerized adaptive tests for orthopaedic foot and ankle outcome research", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 471(11), pp.3466~3474 (2013)[DOI]
  15. Trofa DP, "The current utilization of patient-reported outcome measurement information system in shoulder, elbow, and sports medicine", J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 30(12), pp.554~562 (2022)[DOI]
  16. Page MJ, "PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration : updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews", BMJ, 2021, pp.372~ (2020)[DOI]
  17. Hung M, "Psychometrics of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function instrument administered by computerized adaptive testing and the disabilities of arm, shoulder and hand in the orthopedic elbow patient population", J Shoulder Elb Surg, 27(3), pp.515~522 (2018)[DOI]
  18. Hung M, "Psychometric properties of the promis physical function item bank in patients with spinal disorders", Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 39(2), pp.158~163 (1976)[DOI]
  19. Jaeschke R, "Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference", Control Clin Trials, 10(4), pp.407~415 (1989)[DOI]
  20. Slim K, "Methodological index for non-randomized studies(Minors) : development and validation of a new instrument", ANZ J Surg, 73(9), pp.712~716 (2003)[DOI]
  21. Khalil LS, "Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System(PROMIS)global health short forms demonstrate responsiveness in patients undergoing knee arthroplasty", J Arthroplasty, 35(6), pp.1540~1544 (2020)[DOI]
  22. Padilla JA, "Relationship between the patient-reported outcome measurement information system and traditional patient-reported outcomes for osteoarthritis", J Arthroplasty, 34(2), pp.265~272 (2019)[DOI]
  23. Austin DC, "A one-question patient-reported outcome measure is comparable to multiple-question measures in total knee arthroplasty patients", J Arthroplasty, 34(12), pp.2937~2943 (2019)[DOI]
  24. Darrith B, "Preoperative patient-reported outcomes measurement information system global health scores predict patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference in the early postoperative time period after total knee arthroplasty", J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 29(24), pp.e1417~e1426 (2021)[DOI]
  25. Heng M, "Can the knee outcome and osteoarthritis score(KOOS)function subscale be linked to the PROMIS physical function to crosswalk equivalent scores?", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 479(12), pp.2653~2664 (2021)[DOI]
  26. Shaw JH, "Minimal clinically important difference in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty versus standard manual total knee arthroplasty", J Arthroplasty, 36(7), pp.S233~S241 (2021)[DOI]
  27. Shim J, "Comparative responsiveness of the PROMIS-10 global health and EQ-5D questionnaires in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty", Bone Jt J, 101 B(7), pp.832~837 (2019)[DOI]
  28. Melnic CM, "Patient-reported mental health score influences physical function after primary total knee arthroplasty", J Arthroplasty, 36(4), pp.1277~1283 (2021)[DOI]
  29. Kagan R, "The recovery curve for the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system patient-reported physical function and pain interference computerized adaptive tests after primary total knee arthroplasty", J Arthroplasty, 33(8), pp.2471~2474 (2018)[DOI]
  30. Frye BM, "A medial congruent polyethylene offers satisfactory early outcomes and patient satisfaction in total knee arthroplasty", Arthroplast Today, 7, pp.243~249.e0 (2021)[DOI]
  31. Nwankwo VC, "Resilience and pain catastrophizing among patients with total knee arthroplasty : a cohort study to examine psychological constructs as predictors of post-operative outcomes", Health Qual Life Outcomes, 19(1), pp.1~12 (2021)[DOI]
  32. Stiegel KR, "Early experience and results using patient-reported outcomes measurement information system scores in primary total hip and knee arthroplasty", J Arthroplasty, 34(10), pp.2313~2318 (2019)[DOI]
  33. Lawrie CM, "Is the patient-reported outcome measurement information system feasible in bundled payment for care improvement total knee arthroplasty patients?", J Arthroplasty, 36(1), pp.6~12 (2021)[DOI]
  34. Tang X, "Linking the KOOS-PS to PROMIS physical function in knee patients evaluated for surgery", J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 30(6), pp.281~289 (2022)[DOI]
  35. Christensen J, "Physical activity, pain interference and comorbidities relate to PROMIS physical function in younger adults following total knee arthroplasty", Disabil Rehabil, 43(26), pp.3741~3747 (2021)[DOI]
  36. Kortlever JTP, "PROMIS physical function correlates with KOOS, JR in patients with knee pain", J Knee Surg, 33(9), pp.903~911 (2020)[DOI]

관련 논문AI추천

The current utilization of the patient-reported outcome measurement information system (PROMIS) in isolated or combined total knee arthroplasty populationsAlexander L Neuwirth, Alirio J deMeireles, David P. Trofa, Natalia Czerwonka, Puneet Gupta, Sohil S Desai대한슬관절학회 · Knee Surgery and Related Research2023 · 제35권 Minimal clinically important difference of commonly used patient-reported outcome measures in total knee arthroplasty: review of terminologies, methods and proposed valuesChatte Manish, Kim Tae Kyun, Kim Woo Hyun, Maredupaka Siddhartha, Meshram Prashant대한슬관절학회 · Knee Surgery and Related Research2020 · 제32권 Minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient‑acceptable symptom state (PASS) in patients who have undergone total knee arthroplasty: a systematic reviewAndreas Bell, Filippo Migliorini, Francesco Simeone, Luise Schäfer, Nicola Maffulli, Ulf Krister Hofmann대한슬관절학회 · Knee Surgery and Related Research2024 · 제36권 Patient Satisfaction after Total Knee ArthroplastyHo Jong Ra, Young-Joon Choi대한슬관절학회 · Knee Surgery and Related Research2016 · 제28권 제1호Serial changes in patient‑reported outcome measures and satisfaction rate during long‑term follow‑up after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta‑analysisDarryl D. D’Lima, Hyuk-Soo Han, Hyunkwon Kim, Jisu Park, Moon Jong Chang, Tae Woo Kim대한슬관절학회 · Knee Surgery and Related Research2024 · 제36권 Patients Still Wish for Key Improvements after Total Knee Arthroplasty김태균, Ankur Bamne, Seok Jin Kim, Yeon Gwi Kang, Young Dong Song대한슬관절학회 · Knee Surgery and Related Research2015 · 제27권 제1호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (28건)

Radiographic measurement of the congruence angle according to Merchant: validity, reproducibility, and limitsArnaud Germaneau, Tanguy Vendeuvre, Moustapha Drame, Mathieu Severyns, Julien Mallet, Baptiste Santoni, Thomas Barnavonpp. 1-1Acceptable clinical outcomes despite high reoperation rate at minimum 12-month follow-up after concomitant arthroscopically assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and medial meniscal allograft transplantationGuillem Gonzalez-Lomas, Hadi Aziz, Laith M. Jazrawi, Kinjal D. Vasavada, Eric J. Strauss, Michael J. Alaia, Kirk A. Campbell, Dhruv S. Shankar, Amanda Avila, Brittany DeClouettepp. 2-2The current utilization of the patient-reported outcome measurement information system (PROMIS) in isolated or combined total knee arthroplasty populationsSohil S Desai, Alirio J deMeireles, David P. Trofa, Alexander L Neuwirth, Puneet Gupta, Natalia Czerwonkapp. 3-3Single-stage long-stem total knee arthroplasty in severe arthritis with stress fracture: a systematic reviewAlok Rai, Shubhankar Shekhar, SAKET PRAKASH, Tarun Khare, Rajesh Malhotrapp. 4-4The additional tibial stem extension is not mandatory for the stability of 5 mm metal block augmented tibial prosthesis construct in primary total knee arthroplasty: 5-year minimum follow-up resultsJae Joon Ryu, Yeong Hwan Kim, Choong Hyeok Choipp. 5-5
원문 보기