Utility of PROMIS computerized adaptive testing for assessing mobility in lower extremity fracture patients

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured Pub Date : 2025-03-03 DOI:10.1016/j.injury.2025.112234
Michiel A.J. Luijten , Lotte Haverman , Caroline B. Terwee , Martijn Poeze , Diederik O. Verbeek
{"title":"Utility of PROMIS computerized adaptive testing for assessing mobility in lower extremity fracture patients","authors":"Michiel A.J. Luijten ,&nbsp;Lotte Haverman ,&nbsp;Caroline B. Terwee ,&nbsp;Martijn Poeze ,&nbsp;Diederik O. Verbeek","doi":"10.1016/j.injury.2025.112234","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Assessment of mobility in orthopaedic trauma patients is commonly performed using the Lower Extremity Functional Assessment (LEFS). Computerized adaptive testing (CAT) utilizing the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is an advanced method for assessing multiple aspects of patient-reported health and may provide an effective alternative for this purpose. The objective of this study was to correlate and psychometrically compare PROMIS (Mobility (MOB) and Physical Function (PF)) CATs to legacy mobility PROMs (Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS)/ Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA)), and to evaluate factors associated with worse mobility.</div></div><div><h3>Patients and methods</h3><div>In this Cross-sectional study performed in a single Level-I trauma center, 123 patients were recruited who were treated for a lower-extremity fracture (October 1, 2021-July 1, 2023). Correlations (Pearson), known-group validity (Two-sample T test), reliability (Standard error (SE) and Cronbach's alpha), items and completion time, and floor/ceiling effects were assessed. Factors associated with PROMIS-MOB scores were also identified based on multivariable regression analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>PROMIS-MOB and LEFS/SMFA (0.75/0.86), PROMIS-PF and LEFS/SMFA (0.76/0.84), and both PROMIS-CATs (0.88) were highly correlated.</div><div>Regarding know-group validity, all PROM scores were worse among patients with moderate-extreme pain. Only PROMIS-CATs scores were worse among older (≥65 years) and short-term follow-up (3≤months) patients.</div><div>Reliability was very high for PROMIS-MOB (SE2.1), PROMIS-PF (SE2.0), LEFS (alpha0.97) and SMFA (apha0.97).</div><div>Fewer items were needed for PROMIS-MOB (6) and PROMIS-PF (5) compared to LEFS (20) and SMFA (34). Completion time (mean seconds) of PROMIS-MOB (65) and PROMIS-PF (70) was less compared to LEFS (338) and SMFA (367) (p&lt;0.001).</div><div>Neither PROMIS-CATs nor LEFS/SMFA exhibited floor/ceiling effects.</div><div>Advancing age, depression, pain intensity, shorter follow-up were associated with worse PROMIS-MOB scores.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>PROMIS-MOB and PROMIS-PF CATs exhibited a strong correlation with the LEFS and SMFA, indicating that they offer the same information regarding mobility and general physical functioning. Nonetheless, CATs took less time to complete and were better able to detect (subtle) differences between certain groups than traditionally used PROMs. Given that both PROMIS-MOB and PROMIS-PF CATs were also highly correlated, it is questionable whether the more specific mobility CAT provides distinct information in lower extremity fracture patients.</div><div><strong>Levels of Evidence:</strong> Diagnostic study, Level II</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54978,"journal":{"name":"Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured","volume":"56 4","pages":"Article 112234"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020138325000944","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Assessment of mobility in orthopaedic trauma patients is commonly performed using the Lower Extremity Functional Assessment (LEFS). Computerized adaptive testing (CAT) utilizing the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is an advanced method for assessing multiple aspects of patient-reported health and may provide an effective alternative for this purpose. The objective of this study was to correlate and psychometrically compare PROMIS (Mobility (MOB) and Physical Function (PF)) CATs to legacy mobility PROMs (Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS)/ Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA)), and to evaluate factors associated with worse mobility.

Patients and methods

In this Cross-sectional study performed in a single Level-I trauma center, 123 patients were recruited who were treated for a lower-extremity fracture (October 1, 2021-July 1, 2023). Correlations (Pearson), known-group validity (Two-sample T test), reliability (Standard error (SE) and Cronbach's alpha), items and completion time, and floor/ceiling effects were assessed. Factors associated with PROMIS-MOB scores were also identified based on multivariable regression analysis.

Results

PROMIS-MOB and LEFS/SMFA (0.75/0.86), PROMIS-PF and LEFS/SMFA (0.76/0.84), and both PROMIS-CATs (0.88) were highly correlated.
Regarding know-group validity, all PROM scores were worse among patients with moderate-extreme pain. Only PROMIS-CATs scores were worse among older (≥65 years) and short-term follow-up (3≤months) patients.
Reliability was very high for PROMIS-MOB (SE2.1), PROMIS-PF (SE2.0), LEFS (alpha0.97) and SMFA (apha0.97).
Fewer items were needed for PROMIS-MOB (6) and PROMIS-PF (5) compared to LEFS (20) and SMFA (34). Completion time (mean seconds) of PROMIS-MOB (65) and PROMIS-PF (70) was less compared to LEFS (338) and SMFA (367) (p<0.001).
Neither PROMIS-CATs nor LEFS/SMFA exhibited floor/ceiling effects.
Advancing age, depression, pain intensity, shorter follow-up were associated with worse PROMIS-MOB scores.

Conclusion

PROMIS-MOB and PROMIS-PF CATs exhibited a strong correlation with the LEFS and SMFA, indicating that they offer the same information regarding mobility and general physical functioning. Nonetheless, CATs took less time to complete and were better able to detect (subtle) differences between certain groups than traditionally used PROMs. Given that both PROMIS-MOB and PROMIS-PF CATs were also highly correlated, it is questionable whether the more specific mobility CAT provides distinct information in lower extremity fracture patients.
Levels of Evidence: Diagnostic study, Level II
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
8.00%
发文量
699
审稿时长
96 days
期刊介绍: Injury was founded in 1969 and is an international journal dealing with all aspects of trauma care and accident surgery. Our primary aim is to facilitate the exchange of ideas, techniques and information among all members of the trauma team.
期刊最新文献
Long-term effect of lower limb fractures A national register-based cohort study with a mean of 16.7 years follow-up Utility of PROMIS computerized adaptive testing for assessing mobility in lower extremity fracture patients Editorial Board Letter to the editor regarding “ The paediatric polytrauma CT-indication (PePCI)-score–development of a prognostic model to reduce unnecessary CT scans in paediatric trauma patients” Respond to letter to the Editor regarding “The paediatric polytrauma CT-indication (PePCI)-score–development of a prognostic model to reduce unnecessary CT scans in paediatric trauma patients”
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1