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。

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-31 DOI:10.1097/BOT.0000000000002814
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":null,"pages":null},"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的比较患者报告结果测量信息系统(PROMIS)(身体功能[PF]和疼痛干扰[PI])计算机自适应测试与传统的简易肌肉骨骼功能评估(SMFA)(功能障碍指数[DI]和困扰指数[BI])的测量特性。探讨与 PROMIS 评分相关的因素:设计:横断面研究:设计:横断面研究:地点:一级创伤中心:从创伤骨科门诊招募孤立的上肢/下肢骨折患者(2021 年 10 月 1 日至 2023 年 1 月 1 日):评估相关性(Pearson)、可靠性(标准误差 [SE] [T score])、效率(每个项目的信息量 [1 - SE2/Nitems])和地板/天花板效应。r>0.7代表高度相关,SE≤2.2代表足够可靠。此外,还确定了与 PROMIS 评分降低相关的因素:共有202名患者在中位随访98天时完成了PROMs。PROMIS-PF与SMFA-DI之间的相关性为-0.84,PROMIS-PI与SMFA-BI之间的相关性为0.65。两种工具的可靠性都非常高(平均SE为2.0[PROMIS-PF]、SE为2.1[PROMIS-PI],SE为1.2[SMFA-DI]、SE为1.8[SMFA-BI])。PROMIS-PF与SMFA-DI、PROMIS-PI与SMFA-BI的相对效率分别为7.8(SD 2.5)和4.1(SD 1.7)。PROMIS和SMFA均未表现出地板/天花板效应。在多变量回归分析中,除其他因素外,抑郁水平的升高与 PROMIS-PF 和 PROMIS-PI 评分的降低有(独立)关联:PROMIS-PF和PROMIS-PI CAT与SMFA显示出(高度和中度)相关性,因此测量的身体功能和不适具有可比性。由于计算机化自适应测试的实施效率更高,因此在评估骨折治疗的影响方面,计算机化自适应测试是SMFA的一个令人信服的替代方案。抑郁症状与PROMIS评分之间的关系强调了创伤骨科患者社会心理方面健康的重要性:预后III级。有关证据等级的完整描述,请参阅 "作者须知"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
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.

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
Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma
Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 医学-运动科学
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
8.70%
发文量
396
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Outpatient Upper Extremity Fracture Surgery Is Associated with Increased Post-operative Emergency Department Visits. Lower Extremity Trauma is Associated With an Increased Rate of New Mental Disorder Diagnosis and Suicide Attempt. The Dangers of Distracted Driving: A Substudy of Patient Perception Data From the DRIVSAFE Observational Study. Heritable Thrombophilia and Increased Risk for Venous Thromboembolism Despite Thromboprophylaxis After Pelvis or Acetabulum Fracture. Timing of radiographic healing for distal femur fractures treated with intramedullary nails.
×
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