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

Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma

Volumn 29, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 257-263

  Morgan, Jordan H ^a   Kallen, Michael A ^b   Okike, Kanu ^c   Lee, Olivia C ^d   Vrahas, Mark S ^a  

^a MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer adaptive testing; Outcome measures; Patient reported outcomes; Physical function; PROMIS; Trauma

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTERIZED ADAPTIVE TESTING; CONFERENCE PAPER; CONSTANT SHOULDER SCORE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISABILITIES OF THE ARM, SHOULDER AND HAND (SCORE); EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICE; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL STATUS; HUMAN; HUMERUS FRACTURE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASE ASSESSMENT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROMIS PHYSICAL FUNCTION COMPUTER ADAPTIVE TEST; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SHORT MUSCULOSKELETAL FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; VERY ELDERLY; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; CONVALESCENCE; FRACTURE HEALING; GERIATRIC ASSESSMENT; INJURY SCALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SHOULDER FRACTURES;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; FEMALE; FRACTURE HEALING; GERIATRIC ASSESSMENT; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SHOULDER FRACTURES; TRAUMA SEVERITY INDICES;

EID: 84929858481     PISSN: 08905339     EISSN: 15312291     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000280     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (33)

1. Rose M, Bjorner JB, Becker J, et al. Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supported the expected advantages of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:17-33.
2. Cella D, Gershon R, Lai JS, et al. The future of outcomes measurement: item banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(suppl 1):133-141.
3. McHorney C, Tarlov A. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4: 293-307.
4. Cella D, Riley W, Stone A, et al. The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005-2008. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:1179-1194.
5. Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N, et al. The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS): progress of an NIH road-map cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care. 2007;45: S3-S11.
6. Fries J, Rose M, Krishnan E. The PROMIS of better outcome assessment: responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects, and internet administration. J Rheumatol. 2011;38:1759-1764.
7. Fries JF, Krishnan E, Rose M, et al. Improved responsiveness and reduced sample size requirements of PROMIS physical function scales with item response theory. Arthritis Res Ther. 2011;13:R147.
8. Hung M, Clegg DO, Greene T, et al. Evaluation of the PROMIS physical function item bank in orthopaedic patients. J Orthop Res. 2011;29: 947-953.
9. Hung M, Stuart A, Higgins T, et al. Computerized adaptive testing using the PROMIS physical function item bank reduces test burden with less ceiling effects compared to the short musculoskeletal function assessment in orthopaedic trauma patients. J Orthop Trauma. 2014;28:439-443.
10. King P, Malin A, Scott R, et al. The fate of patients not returning for follow-up five years after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A:897-901.
11. Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;214:160-164.
12. PROMIS physical function scoring manual [Internet]: PROMIS. Available at: http://www.assessmentcenter.net/documents/PROMIS%20Physical%20Function%20Scoring%20Manual.pdf.
13. Aletaha D. From the item to the outcome: the promising prospects of PROMIS. Arthritis Res Ther. 2010;12:104.
14. Conboy VB, Morris RW, Kiss J, et al. An evaluation of the constant-murley shoulder assessment. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78:229-232.
15. Hirschmann MT, Wind B, Amsler F, et al. Reliability of shoulder abduction strength measure for the constant-murley score. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:1565-1571.
16. Brinker MR, Cuomo JS, Popham GJ, et al. An examination of bias in shoulder scoring instruments among healthy collegiate and recreational athletes. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11:463-469.
17. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The upper extremity collaborative group (UECG). Am J Ind Med. 1996;29:602-608.
18. Solway S, McConnell S, Bombardier C. The DASH Outcome Measure User's Manual. Toronto, ON: Institute for Work & Health; 2002;5.
19. Wright R, Baumgarten K. Shoulder outcomes measures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2010;18:436-444.
20. Swiontkowski MF, Engelberg R, Martin DP, et al. Short musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire: validity, reliability, and responsiveness. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81:1245-1260.
21. Hunsaker FG, Cioffi DA, Amadio PC, et al. The american academy of orthopaedic surgeons outcomes instruments: normative values from the general population. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A:208-215.
22. Cohen J. The significance of a product momentr. In: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.; 1988:80.
23. Porter SR, Whitcomb ME, Weitzer WH. Multiple surveys of students and survey fatigue. New Dir Institutional Res. 2004;2004:63-73.
24. Angst F, Schwyzer HK, Aeschlimann A, et al. Measures of adult shoulder function: disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire (DASH) and its short version (QuickDASH), shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI), american shoulder and elbow surgeons (ASES) society standardized shoulder assessment form, constant (murley) score (CS), simple shoulder test (SST), oxford shoulder score (OSS), shoulder disability questionnaire (SDQ), and western ontario shoulder instability index (WOSI). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63(suppl 11):S174-S188.
25. Roy JS, MacDermid JC, Woodhouse LJ. Measuring shoulder function: a systematic review of four questionnaires. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;61: 623-632.
26. Konigshausen M, Kubler L, Godry H, et al. Clinical outcome and complications using a polyaxial locking plate in the treatment of displaced proximal humerus fractures. A reliable system? Injury. 2012;43:223-231.
27. Brunner F, Sommer C, Bahrs C, et al. Open reduction and internal fixation of proximal humerus fractures using a proximal humeral locked plate: a prospective multicenter analysis. J Orthop Trauma. 2009;23: 163-172.
28. Hanson B, Neidenbach P, de Boer P, et al. Functional outcomes after nonoperative management of fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18:612-621.
29. Sudkamp N, Bayer J, Hepp P, et al. Open reduction and internal fixation of proximal humeral fractures with use of the locking proximal humerus plate. results of a prospective, multicenter, observational study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:1320-1328.
30. Obremskey WT, Brown O, Driver R, et al. Comparison of SF-36 and short musculoskeletal functional assessment in recovery from fixation of unstable ankle fractures. Orthopedics. 2007;30:145-151.
31. Slobogean GP, Noonan VK, O'Brien PJ. The reliability and validity of the disabilities of arm, shoulder, and hand, EuroQol-5D, health utilities index, and short form-6D outcome instruments in patients with proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19:342-348.
32. Busse JW, Bhandari M, Guyatt GH, et al. Use of both short musculoskel-etal function assessment questionnaire and short form-36 among tibial-fracture patients was redundant. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1210-1217.
33. Hsu JE, Nacke E, Park MJ, et al. The disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire in intercollegiate athletes: validity limited by ceiling effect. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19:349-354.