膝关节置换术患者报告的结果测量信息系统仪器:文献的系统回顾。

Q2 Medicine
Natalia Czerwonka, Puneet Gupta, Sohil S Desai, Thomas R Hickernell, Alexander L Neuwirth, David P Trofa
{"title":"膝关节置换术患者报告的结果测量信息系统仪器:文献的系统回顾。","authors":"Natalia Czerwonka, Puneet Gupta, Sohil S Desai, Thomas R Hickernell, Alexander L Neuwirth, David P Trofa","doi":"10.1186/s43019-023-00201-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":36317,"journal":{"name":"Knee Surgery and Related Research","volume":"35 1","pages":"27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10690965/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system instruments in knee arthroplasty patients: a systematic review of the literature.\",\"authors\":\"Natalia Czerwonka, Puneet Gupta, Sohil S Desai, Thomas R Hickernell, Alexander L Neuwirth, David P Trofa\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s43019-023-00201-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36317,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Knee Surgery and Related Research\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"27\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10690965/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Knee Surgery and Related Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43019-023-00201-6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knee Surgery and Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43019-023-00201-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究的目的是对有关患者报告结果测量信息系统(PROMIS)验证和作为全膝关节置换术(TKA)患者结果指标的使用的文献进行系统回顾。这是首个关于PROMIS在全膝关节置换术患者中的应用的系统综述。方法:根据系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南对Pubmed/MEDLINE和Embase数据库进行系统检索。记录并分析研究特征、患者人口统计学特征、心理测量特性(Pearson和Spearman相关)与遗留患者报告的结果测量(PROM)仪器、下限和天花板效应、反应性、最小临床重要差异(MCID)和PROMIS结果。结果:纳入了15项调查PROMIS的研究,涉及11,140例患者。全膝关节置换术患者中PROMIS域与遗留患者报告的结果测量值的加权平均Pearson相关系数为0.62[标准误差(SE) = 0.06],全膝关节置换术患者中PROMIS域与遗留患者报告的结果测量值的加权平均Spearman相关系数为0.59 (SE = 0.06),显示出中到强的相关性和效度。加权平均楼层无差异[0.03% (SE = 3.1) vs 0% (SE = 0.1) vs 0.01% (SE = 1.1);(p = 0.25)或天花板效应(0.01% SE = 0.7)和0.02% (SE = 1.4)和0.04% (SE = 3.5);p = 0.36]。总体身体健康(GPH)患者达到MCID的加权平均百分比为59.1%,总体精神健康(GMH)患者为26.0%,身体功能(PF)患者为52.7%,疼痛干扰(PI)患者为67.2%,抑郁患者为37.2%。结论:值得注意的是,PROMIS整体身体健康,身体功能和疼痛干扰被发现具有显着反应,PROMIS疼痛干扰最有效地捕获临床改善,这可以通过MCID的实现来证明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system instruments in knee arthroplasty patients: a systematic review of the literature.

Background: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusion: 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
审稿时长
19 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信