2021 ISAKOS Biennial Congress ePoster
Utilization Of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (Promis) For Operative Shoulder Outcomes.
Ilona Schwarz, MS, Boulder, CO UNITED STATES
John-Rudolph H. Smith, BS, Aurora, CO UNITED STATES
Darby Adele Houck, BA, Boulder, CO UNITED STATES
Rachel M. Frank, MD, Aurora, CO UNITED STATES
Jonathan T. Bravman, MD, Denver, CO UNITED STATES
Eric C. McCarty, MD, Boulder, CO UNITED STATES
University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, UNITED STATES
FDA Status Not Applicable
Summary
This review considers pooled data comparing legacy PROs to PROMIS in patients undergoing shoulder surgery.
ePosters will be available shortly before Congress
Abstract
Background
Few studies have investigated the relationship between Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and legacy Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs). This review considers pooled data comparing legacy PROs to PROMIS in patients undergoing shoulder surgery.
Purpose
To compare PROMIS to legacy PROs in patients undergoing shoulder surgery.
Study Design
Systematic Review
Methods
A systematic search of the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. All English-language studies published between 2017 and 2019 using PROMIS to evaluate patients for shoulder surgery were analyzed. PROs were compared based on survey administered and the shoulder pathology being investigated. Study quality was evaluated with the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS) and the methodological index for non-randomized studies score (MINORS).
Results
Nine studies (5 Level II, 3 Level III, 1 Level IV) encompassing a total of 1130 patients (60.2% male; mean age, 52.6±16.5 years; mean BMI, 29.8±2.8 kg/m2) were included. Six studies administered the PROMIS Physical Function (PF) and six studies administered the PROMIS Upper Extremity (UE). The strongest correlation was between PROMIS PF Computerized Adaptive Test (CAT) and the Short Form (SF)-36 with an average r=0.74. The highest overall correlation with the PROMIS UE was with the American Shoulder and Elbows Surgeons Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) with an average r=0.70. The lowest correlations were found between PROMIS PF and the Marx Shoulder Activity Scale (average r= 0.08) and the PROMIS UE and the Marx Shoulder Activity Scale (average r=0.18).
Conclusion
From available data, the PROMIS PF and PROMIS UE most closely correlate with outcomes measured in SF-36 and the PROMIS UE alone most correlated with ASES. Thus, the PROMIS provides a possible alternative to those outcomes scores, but with a lower overall question burden in pre- and post-operative shoulder patients. Future research should compare the time and question burden of the various PROMIS platforms with a more consistent evaluation of standard PROs.