J Knee Surg 2020; 33(08): 810-817
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1688691
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Evaluation of the PROMIS Physical Function Computer Adaptive Test in Patients Undergoing Knee Surgery

Megan Miles
1   Department of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
,
1   Department of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
3   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York
,
Julio J. Jauregui
1   Department of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Andrew G. Dubina
1   Department of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Michael P. Smuda
1   Department of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Craig H. Bennett
1   Department of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Jonathan D. Packer
1   Department of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
,
R. Frank Henn III
1   Department of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
› Author Affiliations
Funding This work was supported by a grant from The James Lawrence Kernan Hospital Endowment Fund, Incorporated.
Further Information

Publication History

26 August 2018

18 March 2019

Publication Date:
08 May 2019 (online)

Abstract

A cross-sectional analysis of data derived from patients undergoing knee surgery at a single institution was conducted. The objectives of the study were to (1) compare how the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical function (PROMIS PF) computer adaptive test performs against the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Form in evaluating functional status, and (2) to determine demographic, clinical, and psychosocial correlates of each outcome measure in an urban population undergoing a variety of knee surgeries. We hypothesized that there would be a strong correlation between PROMIS PF and IKDC, with minimal floor and ceiling effects, and similar clinical correlates. The sample consisted of 412 patients undergoing knee surgery. Bivariate and multivariable statistical analyses were performed to identify significant independent predictors. The PROMIS PF and IKDC scores were strongly correlated (r s = 0.71, p < 0.001), and neither exhibited floor nor ceiling effects. Lower body mass index, no preoperative opioid use, lower Charlson comorbidity index score, employment, and lower income were found to be significant independent predictors for better scores on both PROMIS PF and IKDC. Patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty had significantly lower PROMIS PF and IKDC scores (p < 0.05). Potential explanations for these findings are presented, and clinical implications are discussed.

Note

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board Committee at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD (HP-00062261).


 
  • References

  • 1 Beckmann JT, Hung M, Bounsanga J, Wylie JD, Granger EK, Tashjian RZ. Psychometric evaluation of the PROMIS physical function computerized adaptive test in comparison to the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score and Simple Shoulder Test in patients with rotator cuff disease. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2015; 24 (12) 1961-1967
  • 2 Hung M, Clegg DO, Greene T, Saltzman CL. Evaluation of the PROMIS physical function item bank in orthopaedic patients. J Orthop Res 2011; 29 (06) 947-953
  • 3 Hung M, Stuart AR, Higgins TF, Saltzman CL, Kubiak EN. 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 (08) 439-443
  • 4 Morgan JH, Kallen MA, Okike K, Lee OC, Vrahas MS. PROMIS physical function computer adaptive test compared with other upper extremity outcome measures in the evaluation of proximal humerus fractures in patients older than 60 years. J Orthop Trauma 2015; 29 (06) 257-263
  • 5 Rose M, Bjorner JB, Gandek B, Bruce B, Fries JF, Ware Jr JE. The PROMIS physical function item bank was calibrated to a standardized metric and shown to improve measurement efficiency. J Clin Epidemiol 2014; 67 (05) 516-526
  • 6 Higgins LD, Taylor MK, Park D. , et al; International Knee Documentation Committee. Reliability and validity of the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Form. Joint Bone Spine 2007; 74 (06) 594-599
  • 7 Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL. , et al. Development and validation of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form. Am J Sports Med 2001; 29 (05) 600-613
  • 8 Papuga MO, Beck CA, Kates SL, Schwarz EM, Maloney MD. Validation of GAITRite and PROMIS as high-throughput physical function outcome measures following ACL reconstruction. J Orthop Res 2014; 32 (06) 793-801
  • 9 Tyser AR, Beckmann J, Franklin JD. , et al. Evaluation of the PROMIS physical function computer adaptive test in the upper extremity. J Hand Surg Am 2014; 39 (10) 2047-2051.e4
  • 10 Gershon RC, Rothrock N, Hanrahan R, Bass M, Cella D. The use of PROMIS and assessment center to deliver patient-reported outcome measures in clinical research. J Appl Meas 2010; 11 (03) 304-314
  • 11 Hancock KJ, Glass N, Anthony CA. , et al. Performance of PROMIS for healthy patients undergoing meniscal surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99 (11) 954-958
  • 12 Hung M, Baumhauer JF, Latt LD, Saltzman CL, SooHoo NF, Hunt KJ. ; National Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Outcomes Research Network. Validation of PROMIS ® physical function computerized adaptive tests for orthopaedic foot and ankle outcome research. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471 (11) 3466-3474
  • 13 Hung M, Hon SD, Franklin JD. , et al. Psychometric properties of the PROMIS physical function item bank in patients with spinal disorders. Spine 2014; 39 (02) 158-163
  • 14 Cook KF, O'Malley KJ, Roddey TS. Dynamic assessment of health outcomes: time to let the CAT out of the bag?. Health Serv Res 2005; 40 (5 Pt 2): 1694-1711
  • 15 Henn III RF, Dubina AG, Jauregui JJ, Smuda MP, Tracy JK. The Maryland Orthopaedic Registry (MOR): design and baseline characteristics of a prospective registry. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2017; 8 (04) 301-307
  • 16 Levin J. Elementary Statistics in Social Research. India: Pearson Education; 2006
  • 17 Robins RJ, Anderson MB, Zhang Y, Presson AP, Burks RT, Greis PE. Convergent validity of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System's physical function computerized adaptive test for the knee and shoulder injury sports medicine patient population. Arthroscopy 2017; 33 (03) 608-616
  • 18 Agel J, LaPrade RF. Assessment of differences between the modified Cincinnati and International Knee Documentation Committee patient outcome scores: a prospective study. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37 (11) 2151-2157
  • 19 Anderson AF, Irrgang JJ, Kocher MS, Mann BJ, Harrast JJ. ; International Knee Documentation Committee. The International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form: normative data. Am J Sports Med 2006; 34 (01) 128-135