Michiel A J Luijten, Lotte Haverman, Caroline B Terwee, Martijn Poeze, Diederik O Verbeek
{"title":"加强骨科创伤护理后的身体功能评估：PROMIS 计算机适应性测试与简易肌肉骨骼功能评估的比较。","authors":"Michiel A J Luijten, Lotte Haverman, Caroline B Terwee, Martijn Poeze, Diederik O Verbeek","doi":"10.1097/BOT.0000000000002814","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare measurement properties of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) (physical function [PF] and pain interference [PI]) computerized adaptive testing to traditional Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) (dysfunction index [DI] and bother index [BI]). To explore factors associated with PROMIS scores.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong></p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Level I Trauma Center.</p><p><strong>Patient selection criteria: </strong>Isolated upper/lower extremity fracture patients were recruited from the orthopaedic trauma outpatient clinic (October 1, 2021 to January 1, 2023).</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>Correlations (Pearson), reliability (standard error [SE] [T score]), efficiency (amount of information per item [1 - SE2/Nitems]), and floor/ceiling effects were assessed. An r > 0.7 represented high correlation, and SE ≤ 2.2 represented sufficient reliability. Factors associated with worse PROMIS scores were also identified.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 202 patients completed PROMs at median 98 days follow-up. Correlations between PROMIS-PF and SMFA-DI, and PROMIS-PI and SMFA-BI were -0.84 and 0.65. Reliability was very high for both instruments (mean SE 2.0 [PROMIS-PF], SE 2.1 [PROMIS-PI], and SE 1.2 [SMFA-DI], SE 1.8 [SMFA-BI]). Relative efficiency for PROMIS-PF versus SMFA-DI, and PROMIS-PI versus SMFA-BI was 7.8 (SD 2.5) and 4.1 (SD 1.7), respectively. Neither PROMIS nor SMFA exhibited floor/ceiling effects. In the multivariable regression analyses, elevated levels of depression, among other factors, showed an (independent) association with worse PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-PI scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-PI CATs showed a (high and moderate) correlation with SMFA and hence measure a comparable construct of physical function and discomfort. As computerized adaptive tests are much more efficient to administer, they present a compelling alternative to SMFA for evaluating impact of fracture treatment. The relation between symptoms of depression and PROMIS scores emphasizes the importance of psychosocial aspects of health in orthopaedic trauma patients.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":16644,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma","volume":"38 7","pages":"390-396"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11146170/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Enhancing the Evaluation of Physical Function Following Orthopaedic Trauma Care: Comparison of PROMIS Computerized Adaptive Testing and Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment.\",\"authors\":\"Michiel A J Luijten, Lotte Haverman, Caroline B Terwee, Martijn Poeze, Diederik O Verbeek\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/BOT.0000000000002814\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare measurement properties of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) (physical function [PF] and pain interference [PI]) computerized adaptive testing to traditional Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) (dysfunction index [DI] and bother index [BI]). To explore factors associated with PROMIS scores.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong></p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Level I Trauma Center.</p><p><strong>Patient selection criteria: </strong>Isolated upper/lower extremity fracture patients were recruited from the orthopaedic trauma outpatient clinic (October 1, 2021 to January 1, 2023).</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>Correlations (Pearson), reliability (standard error [SE] [T score]), efficiency (amount of information per item [1 - SE2/Nitems]), and floor/ceiling effects were assessed. An r > 0.7 represented high correlation, and SE ≤ 2.2 represented sufficient reliability. Factors associated with worse PROMIS scores were also identified.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 202 patients completed PROMs at median 98 days follow-up. Correlations between PROMIS-PF and SMFA-DI, and PROMIS-PI and SMFA-BI were -0.84 and 0.65. Reliability was very high for both instruments (mean SE 2.0 [PROMIS-PF], SE 2.1 [PROMIS-PI], and SE 1.2 [SMFA-DI], SE 1.8 [SMFA-BI]). Relative efficiency for PROMIS-PF versus SMFA-DI, and PROMIS-PI versus SMFA-BI was 7.8 (SD 2.5) and 4.1 (SD 1.7), respectively. Neither PROMIS nor SMFA exhibited floor/ceiling effects. In the multivariable regression analyses, elevated levels of depression, among other factors, showed an (independent) association with worse PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-PI scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-PI CATs showed a (high and moderate) correlation with SMFA and hence measure a comparable construct of physical function and discomfort. As computerized adaptive tests are much more efficient to administer, they present a compelling alternative to SMFA for evaluating impact of fracture treatment. The relation between symptoms of depression and PROMIS scores emphasizes the importance of psychosocial aspects of health in orthopaedic trauma patients.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16644,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma\",\"volume\":\"38 7\",\"pages\":\"390-396\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11146170/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000002814\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000002814","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Enhancing the Evaluation of Physical Function Following Orthopaedic Trauma Care: Comparison of PROMIS Computerized Adaptive Testing and Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment.
Objectives: To compare measurement properties of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) (physical function [PF] and pain interference [PI]) computerized adaptive testing to traditional Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) (dysfunction index [DI] and bother index [BI]). To explore factors associated with PROMIS scores.
Methods:
Design: Cross-sectional study.
Setting: Level I Trauma Center.
Patient selection criteria: Isolated upper/lower extremity fracture patients were recruited from the orthopaedic trauma outpatient clinic (October 1, 2021 to January 1, 2023).
Outcome measures: Correlations (Pearson), reliability (standard error [SE] [T score]), efficiency (amount of information per item [1 - SE2/Nitems]), and floor/ceiling effects were assessed. An r > 0.7 represented high correlation, and SE ≤ 2.2 represented sufficient reliability. Factors associated with worse PROMIS scores were also identified.
Results: In total, 202 patients completed PROMs at median 98 days follow-up. Correlations between PROMIS-PF and SMFA-DI, and PROMIS-PI and SMFA-BI were -0.84 and 0.65. Reliability was very high for both instruments (mean SE 2.0 [PROMIS-PF], SE 2.1 [PROMIS-PI], and SE 1.2 [SMFA-DI], SE 1.8 [SMFA-BI]). Relative efficiency for PROMIS-PF versus SMFA-DI, and PROMIS-PI versus SMFA-BI was 7.8 (SD 2.5) and 4.1 (SD 1.7), respectively. Neither PROMIS nor SMFA exhibited floor/ceiling effects. In the multivariable regression analyses, elevated levels of depression, among other factors, showed an (independent) association with worse PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-PI scores.
Conclusions: PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-PI CATs showed a (high and moderate) correlation with SMFA and hence measure a comparable construct of physical function and discomfort. As computerized adaptive tests are much more efficient to administer, they present a compelling alternative to SMFA for evaluating impact of fracture treatment. The relation between symptoms of depression and PROMIS scores emphasizes the importance of psychosocial aspects of health in orthopaedic trauma patients.
Level of evidence: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
期刊介绍：
Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma is devoted exclusively to the diagnosis and management of hard and soft tissue trauma, including injuries to bone, muscle, ligament, and tendons, as well as spinal cord injuries. Under the guidance of a distinguished international board of editors, the journal provides the most current information on diagnostic techniques, new and improved surgical instruments and procedures, surgical implants and prosthetic devices, bioplastics and biometals; and physical therapy and rehabilitation.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
