Journal Logo

Scientific Articles

Establishing “Normal” Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function and Pain Interference Scores

A True Reference Score According to Adults Free of Joint Pain and Disability

Franovic, Sreten MS, BS1; Gulledge, Caleb M. BS1; Kuhlmann, Noah A. MS, BS1; Williford, Tyler H. MS, BS1; Chen, Chaoyang MD, PhD1; Makhni, Eric C. MD, MBA1

Author Information
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.19.00019
  • Open
  • Disclosures

Abstract

The utilization of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has rapidly grown in the field of orthopaedics, providing patient-centric assessments of clinical outcomes1-6. The National Institutes of Health Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) has emerged as a valid and efficient PROM tool across numerous health domains, including physical function, pain, and mental health7-11. The use of computer adaptive tests (CATs) decreases time-to-completion and the number of total questions asked, which enhances the efficiency of administration compared with other “legacy” measures1,4,12,13 in patients with orthopaedic conditions. These attributes have contributed to an increasing utilization of PROMIS measures as primary outcomes in patients undergoing orthopaedic treatment.

For any given PROMIS domain, a score of 50 represents the average of a reference population. This reference score allows clinicians to compare outcomes following orthopaedic intervention. However, to our knowledge, no study to date has defined reference scores for the PROMIS physical function (PROMIS-PF) and pain interference (PROMIS-PI; i.e., the impact of pain on patient quality of life) CAT domains in a healthy, asymptomatic patient population; thus, preoperative and postoperative scores are inaccurately judged against the average American rather than against a metric of unimpaired health. The initial validation study collected comorbidity and disease data and concluded that there was a correlation between worsening scores and comorbidities, the presence of generalized pain or disability in the extremities was not assessed14. Generalized pain or disability may be resultant of acute injury or joint stiffness that is not accounted for by the previous comorbidity analysis. Moreover, initial design and validation testing of PROMIS measures included a population with a much greater proportion of older individuals than seen in the general population. Out of 21,133 subjects, the initial design study cohort included 12% of subjects between the ages of 18 and 29 years old, 12% between 30 and 39 years old, 16% between 40 and 49 years old, 32% between 50 and 64 years old, and 28% ≥65 years old15. Therefore, the reference scores provided may be largely dependent on patient age. In order to establish an ideal comparative baseline score by which orthopaedic providers could judge efficacy of treatment, we evaluated physically healthy adults, with physical health defined in the present study as the absence of disability, pain, or limited functional ability in the upper or lower extremities.

The primary purpose of this study was to determine baseline PROMIS CAT scores for the PROMIS-PF, PROMIS-PI, and upper-extremity physical function (PROMIS-UE) domains in adults without generalized pain or disability in the upper or lower extremities. The secondary purpose of the study was to determine if responder age impacted these reference scores. We hypothesized that, in asymptomatic, young adults, mean PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-UE scores would be greater than the stated reference score of 50, and that PROMIS-PI scores would be <50.

Materials and Methods

The present study was approved by our institutional review board. Inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years without any stated symptoms of pain or disability in the upper or lower extremity, and completion of all 3 PROMIS CAT forms. Participants <18 years old and those with pain or disability in the lower or upper extremity were excluded. Participants who could not communicate in English were also excluded. Participants were recruited from numerous sources, such as in-person requests in public areas as well as email solicitation of peers, colleagues, and publicly available listservers. Questionnaires were emailed or administered on a tablet computer with use of REDCap (Vanderbilt University), a web-based data management and collection application that is compliant with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations16.

The study was conducted between August 6, 2018, and November 7, 2018. All participants indicated their age and then completed the 3 PROMIS CAT forms: PROMIS-UE version 2.0, PROMIS-PF version 2.0, and PROMIS-PI version 1.1. All PROMIS instruments are calibrated to a mean t-score of 50 with a standard deviation of 10, with greater scores indicating more of the health domain in question (i.e., higher PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-UE scores indicate greater function, whereas higher PROMIS-PI scores indicate that pain has a greater detriment on quality of life)17.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to report PROMIS scores. Secondarily, independent samples t tests were used to identify significant differences in PROMIS scores between 2 age groups, those <40 years old and those ≥40 years old. Significance was set at 0.05. Histograms were analyzed for floor and ceiling effects, which measure the ability of a questionnaire to differentiate between respondents at both extremes of the scale. For the present analysis, a ceiling or floor effect was considered present if >15% of participants achieved the highest or lowest possible score, respectively18. Kurtosis and skewness test statistics were also obtained and divided by the respective standard errors of measurement to determine normality with respect to each statistic. Values outside the range of −1.96 to 1.96 were considered non-normal. Lastly, Spearman correlations were used to evaluate the relationship between the 3 PROMIS domains and age. Correlation coefficients (r) were defined as high (>0.7), high-moderate (0.61 to 0.69), moderate (0.4 to 0.6), moderate-weak (0.31 to 0.39), or weak (≤0.3)19. All analyses were performed with use of SPSS (version 26.0; IBM).

Results

A total of 294 participants with a mean age of 33.2 years (range, 18 to 83 years) were included, of whom 207 were <40 years old (mean, 23.8 years old) and 87 were ≥40 years old (mean, 55.4 years old). The mean PROMIS-UE, PROMIS-PF, and PROMIS-PI scores (and standard deviations) were 55.9 ± 6.6, 59.7 ± 8.0, and 43.6 ± 7.6, respectively, for individuals <40 years old compared with 51.2 ± 8.2, 52.9 ± 7.6, and 49.0 ± 8.0, respectively, for individuals ≥40 years old (all comparisons p < 0.001) (Table I). Median scores and interquartile ranges can also be found in Table I.

TABLE I - PROMIS CAT Domain Scores by Age Group*
PROMIS Domain <40 Years Old ≥40 Years Old P Value
PROMIS-UE
 Mean 55.9 ± 6.6 51.2 ± 8.2 <0.001
 Median 60.9 (52.7-61.0) 53.0 (46.2-55.9)
 Range 14.7-61.0 27.1-61.0
PROMIS-PF
 Mean 59.7 ± 8.0 52.9 ± 7.6 <0.001
 Median 61.0 (55.2-64.2) 51.9 (48.2-58.2)
 Range 14.7-75.6 37.2-75.6
PROMIS-PI
 Mean 43.6 ± 7.6 49.0 ± 8.0 <0.001
 Median 38.7 (38.7-50.1) 50.1 (38.7-54.3)
 Range 38.7-83.8 38.7-76.4
*
Values are given either as the mean ± standard deviation, the median with the interquartile range in parentheses, or the range. Bolding indicates a significant p value.

Floor and ceiling effects and score distributions of each cohort were visualized on histograms (Figs. 1 and 2). PROMIS-UE showed significant ceiling effects in both age cohorts, whereas PROMIS-PI displayed strong floor effects, with both findings more prominent among individuals <40 years old (50.7% and 64.7%, respectively) than individuals ≥40 years old (27.6% and 29.9%, respectively). Distribution analysis identified normality for PROMIS-UE and PROMIS-PI among individuals ≥40 years old when assessed by skewness and kurtosis (Table II). Among individuals <40 years old, PROMIS-UE and PROMIS-PF distributions were leptokurtic and PROMIS-UE was negatively skewed, whereas PROMIS-PI was positively skewed.

Fig. 1
Fig. 1:
Histograms showing PROMIS-UE (Fig. 1-A), PROMIS-PF (Fig. 1-B), and PROMIS-PI (Fig. 1-C) scores in individuals ≥40 years old. All 3 mean domain scores were similar to the reference value of 50 (black bar).
Fig. 2
Fig. 2:
Histograms showing PROMIS-UE (Fig. 2-A), PROMIS-PF (Fig. 2-B), and PROMIS-PI (Fig. 2-C) scores in individuals <40 years old. The PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-UE scores were higher and the PROMIS-PI scores were lower compared with the reference value of 50 (black bar).
TABLE II - Distribution Analysis of PROMIS Domains by Age Group
<40 Years Old ≥40 Years Old
Value Normality Value Normality
PROMIS-UE
 Kurtosis* 5.87 ± 0.34 17.26 0.11 ± 0.51 0.22
 Skewness* −1.65 ± 0.17 −9.71 0.20 ± 0.26 0.77
 Floor effect 1 (0.5) 0 (0.0)
 Ceiling effect 105 (50.7) 24 (27.6)
PROMIS-PF
 Kurtosis* 9.29 ± 0.34 27.32 −0.20 ± 0.51 0.39
 Skewness* −0.24 ± 0.17 −1.41 −0.58 ± 0.26 2.23
 Floor effect 1 (0.5) 1 (0.5)
 Ceiling effect 7 (3.4) 1 (1.1)
PROMIS-PI
 Kurtosis* 4.78 ± 0.34 14.06 0.17 ± 0.51 0.33
 Skewness* 1.92 ± 0.17 11.29 0.25 ± 0.26 0.96
 Floor effect 134 (64.7) 26 (29.9)
 Ceiling effect 1 (0.5) 0 (0.0)
*
Values are given as the mean and standard error of the mean. Bolding indicates a nonideal distribution for normality.
Values are given as the number, with the percentage in parentheses. Bolding indicates a value >15% for floor and ceiling effects.

Among individuals <40 years old, there were moderate-weak correlations between PROMIS-UE and PROMIS-PF domains (r = 0.34) and moderate correlations between PROMIS-UE and PROMIS-PI (r = −0.40; p < 0.001 for both comparisons), and weak correlation between PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-PI (r = −0.29; p < 0.001). No significant correlations were found between age and any PROMIS domain among individuals <40 years old. Among individuals ≥40 years old, PROMIS-UE and PROMIS-PF displayed a high-moderate correlation (r = 0.62), PROMIS-UE and PROMIS-PI displayed a moderate correlation (r = −0.59), and PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-PI also displayed a moderate correlation (r = −0.53; p < 0.001 for all comparisons); additionally, age had a moderate correlation with PROMIS-UE (r = −0.41; p < 0.001) and a moderate-weak correlation with PROMIS-PF (r = −0.33; p = 0.002). There was no significant correlation between age and PROMIS-PI among individuals ≥40 years old (p = 0.329) (Table III).

TABLE III - Correlations of PROMIS Domains by Age Group*
<40 Years Old ≥40 Years Old
R Value P Value Correlation Strength R Value P Value Correlation Strength
PROMIS-UE
 PROMIS-PF 0.34 <0.001 Moderate-weak 0.62 <0.001 High-moderate
 PROMIS-PI −0.40 <0.001 Moderate −0.59 <0.001 Moderate
 Age −0.08 0.252 Weak −0.41 <0.001 Moderate
PROMIS-PF
 PROMIS-UE 0.34 <0.001 Moderate-weak 0.62 <0.001 High-moderate
 PROMIS-PI −0.29 <0.001 Weak −0.53 <0.001 Moderate
 Age 0.10 0.143 Weak −0.33 0.002 Moderate-weak
PROMIS-PI
 PROMIS-UE −0.40 <0.001 Moderate −0.59 <0.001 Moderate
 PROMIS-PF −0.29 <0.001 Weak −0.53 <0.001 Moderate
 Age 0.07 0.323 Weak −0.11 0.329 Weak
*
Bolding indicates a significant p value.

Discussion

The results of the present study show that a reference score of 50 for the PROMIS-PF, PROMIS-UE, and PROMIS-PI CAT domains may not be applicable to patients under the age of 40 years. In individuals ≥40 years old, however, scores in these domains do approach the stated reference value of 50.

The principal finding of this study was that, in individuals <40 years old, the scores for PROMIS-UE (55.9) and PROMIS-PF (59.7) exceeded the reference score of 50 by over one-half of a standard deviation and 1 standard deviation difference, respectively. These values may be more accurate when assessing the efficacy of orthopaedic treatment in younger patients20-23. Among individuals ≥40 years old, the average PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-UE scores did approach 50. This would be consistent with the reported validation techniques used in the creation of the PROMIS measures, as older participants were selectively utilized in determining reference values15. Therefore, a score of 50 for physical function domains would be reasonable as a reference value in this patient age group.

Similarly, PROMIS-PI scores were significantly lower for individuals <40 years old (43.6) compared with those ≥40 years old (49.0; p < 0.001), indicating that a normal PROMIS-PI score is more than one-half of a standard deviation lower than the stated reference score of 50 for individuals <40 years old. As with physical function, for individuals ≥40 years old, a reference score of 50 may be reasonable for PROMIS-PI measures.

High ceiling effects were found for PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-UE, whereas high floor effects were found for PROMIS-PI. Given the asymptomatic nature of the study cohort, these findings were not surprising; however, the degree of ceiling and floor effects was found to be impacted by participant age, with less of an effect among individuals ≥40 years old. These findings again demonstrate the impact of age on PROMIS CAT scores in healthy participants. Most importantly, among individuals ≥40 years old, age correlated significantly with both PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-UE. Several studies have reported a similar impact of age on multiple PROMIS domains, but no study to our knowledge has reported these differences among asymptomatic adults24,25. If baseline function and pain scores decline as patients age, physicians must consider analyzing PROMIS values in a discriminatory fashion when assessing clinical improvement in the elderly. The present study also showed that PROMIS-PI was moderately correlated with PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-UE among individuals ≥40 years old, whereas the correlation was weak among those <40 years old for PROMIS-PF and moderate for PROMIS-UE. Thus, a reduction in pain would signify a positive overall increase in physical function, which is more prominent in an older population. Although multiple studies have already elucidated correlations between PROMIS domains17,26,27, it is important to understand that these correlations are seen in non-disabled reference populations as well.

The present study is important because it documents true reference values for PROMIS CAT domains in physically healthy individuals. Although it is reasonable to hope that the functional health of a patient following an orthopaedic surgical procedure would approach that of a disability-free reference population, many studies have shown otherwise (Table IV)28-41. For example, although the young cohort in the study by Chen et al.30 had a similar average age to that of the younger cohort in the present study, there were no similarities between the postoperative scores in that study and the reference values in the present study; however, this disparity may be attributable to the short follow-up period of 4.5 months in the study by Chen et al., as Papuga et al.34 reported a mean postoperative PROMIS-PF score of 55.0 in a young cohort with 1 year of follow-up. A good understanding of healthy reference values for PROMIS CAT domains would improve the ability of the surgeon to properly counsel patients who are considering elective treatment. Physicians should utilize current literature on postoperative improvements in PROMIS scores in coordination with these revised reference scores so that patients may better understand both their physical health and the potential impact of a surgical procedure.

TABLE IV - Postoperative PROMIS Scores in the Orthopaedic Literature*
Author (Year) Anatomical Region Mean Age (yr) Postoperative Time (mo) PROMIS-PF* PROMIS-PI*
Chen et al. (2018)30 Knee 26.5 4.5 46.6 ± 7.0 47.3 ± 8.8
Papuga et al. (2014)34 Knee 29.5 12 55.0 ± 10.0
Bernholt et al. (2018)39 Knee 53.3 1.5 43.4 55.5
Bernstein et al. (2018)28 Foot & ankle 14.4 42.3 ± 8.5 55.2 ± 8.6
Dean et al. (2017)31 Foot & ankle 52.7 75 51.9 ± 10.0 47.8 ± 8.5
Ho et al. (2016)32 Foot & ankle 53.2 9.9 42.6 ± 7.1 57.1 ± 8.5
Koltsov et al. (2017)36 Foot & ankle 53 6 47.8 ± 7.9 51.0 ± 8.3
Nixon et al. (2018)33 Foot & ankle 6.9 43.1 ± 7.4 54.5 ± 8.3
Raad et al. (2019)35 Spine 54 1.5 36.0 ± 8.8 65.0 ± 7.8
Rubery et al. (2019)40 Spine 40.1 2.9 44.1 ± 8.7 55.1 ± 9.8
Blank et al. (2018)29 Metastatic bone disease 3 45.7 ± 8.5 48.6 ± 3.0
Quispe et al. (2016)37 Shoulder 31.7 12 48.6 ± 7.4
Chen et al. (2019)41 Shoulder 67.6 9.5 44.1 ± 7.0 52.6 ± 8.6
Bozzio et al. (2016)38 Hip 47.5 19 66.4 ± 9.7
*
Values are given as the mean and standard deviation.
Standard deviations not available.

The present study does have notable limitations. Because of the study design, participants were primarily recruited from the local metropolitan area of the host institution, and demographic data, including previous injury or surgical history, were not queried in order to promote a greater response rate. Therefore, the study findings may not be generalizable to different geographic regions, and we were not able to provide a statistical analysis that isolated age as the sole contributor to domain score skewing; however, by nature, PROMIS CAT forms do not have different stratifications for scoring based on comorbidities or patient demographics. Interestingly, respondent data for both cohorts included scores for the lowest function and highest pain measurable, potentially contradicting the presence of no pain or disability. These outliers may be attributable to the respondent misunderstanding the forms, although these were very few samples and thus should not be alarming. Further, the PROMIS CAT domains were presented in English, thereby excluding individuals who were not able to communicate in English, which further limits the generalizability. To minimize these concerns, a wide age range was recruited without any selection for activity level or profession. Further studies may benefit from addressing these reference values in pain and disability-free athletes to better identify how these domains respond to levels of varying athletic involvement.

In conclusion, for individuals <40 years old, the stated reference score of 50 for PROMIS-PF, PROMIS-UE, and PROMIS-PI does not accurately represent physically healthy, asymptomatic individuals. Instead, scores of >50 for PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-UE and <50 for PROMIS-PI are more accurate measures of a non-disabled, asymptomatic young adult. In contrast, for individuals ≥40 years old, the reference score of 50 for these measures is relatively accurate. Identification of asymptomatic reference scores for these PROMIS CAT measures is important in assessing the true efficacy of orthopaedic interventions.

References

1. Kadri O, Jildeh TR, Meldau JE, Blanchett J, Borowsky P, Muh S, Moutzouros V, Makhni EC. How long does it take for patients to complete PROMIS scores?: an assessment of PROMIS CAT questionnaires administered at an ambulatory sports medicine clinic. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018 Aug 14;6(8):2325967118791180.
2. Hancock KJ, Glass N, Anthony CA, Hettrich CM, Albright J, Amendola A, Wolf BR, Bollier M. Performance of PROMIS for healthy patients undergoing meniscal surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 Jun 7;99(11):954-8.
3. Hancock KJ, Glass N, Anthony CA, Wolf BR, Hettrich CM, Albright J, Bollier M, Amendola A. PROMIS: a valid and efficient outcomes instrument for patients with ACL tears. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019 Jan;27(1):100-4. Epub 2018 Jul 4.
4. Hung M, Franklin JD, Hon SD, Cheng C, Conrad J, Saltzman CL. Time for a paradigm shift with computerized adaptive testing of general physical function outcomes measurements. Foot Ankle Int. 2014 Jan;35(1):1-7. Epub 2013 Oct 7.
5. Patel AA, Dodwad SM, Boody BS, Bhatt S, Savage JW, Hsu WK, Rothrock NE. Validation of Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Computer Adaptive Tests (CATs) in the surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018 Nov 1;43(21):1521-8.
6. Makhni EC, Meadows M, Hamamoto JT, Higgins JD, Romeo AA, Verma NN. Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) in the upper extremity: the future of outcomes reporting? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Feb;26(2):352-7.
7. Alvarez-Nebreda ML, Heng M, Rosner B, McTague M, Javedan H, Harris MB, Weaver MJ. Reliability of proxy-reported Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical function and pain interference responses for elderly patients with musculoskeletal injury. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2019 Feb 15;27(4):e156-65.
8. Beckmann JT, Hung M, Voss MW, Crum AB, Bounsanga J, Tyser AR. Evaluation of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test. J Hand Surg Am. 2016 Jul;41(7):739-744.e4. Epub 2016 Jun 3.
9. Beleckas CM, Prather H, Guattery J, Wright M, Kelly M, Calfee RP. Anxiety in the orthopedic patient: using PROMIS to assess mental health. Qual Life Res. 2018 Sep;27(9):2275-82. Epub 2018 May 8.
10. Beleckas CM, Wright M, Prather H, Chamberlain A, Guattery J, Calfee RP. Relative prevalence of anxiety and depression in patients with upper extremity conditions. J Hand Surg Am. 2018 Jun;43(6):571.e1-8. Epub 2018 Feb 1.
11. Guattery JM, Dardas AZ, Kelly M, Chamberlain A, McAndrew C, Calfee RP. Floor effect of PROMIS depression CAT associated with hasty completion in orthopaedic surgery patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018 Apr;476(4):696-703.
12. Scott EJ, Westermann R, Glass NA, Hettrich C, Wolf BR, Bollier MJ. Performance of the PROMIS in patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018 May 25;6(5):2325967118774509.
13. Beckmann JT, Hung M, Bounsanga J, Wylie JD, Granger EK, Tashjian RZ. Psychometric evaluation of the PROMIS Physical Function Computerized Adaptive Test in comparison to the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score and Simple Shoulder Test in patients with rotator cuff disease. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Dec;24(12):1961-7. Epub 2015 Aug 28.
14. Rothrock NE, Hays RD, Spritzer K, Yount SE, Riley W, Cella D. Relative to the general US population, chronic diseases are associated with poorer health-related quality of life as measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Nov;63(11):1195-204. Epub 2010 Aug 5.
15. Cella D, Riley W, Stone A, Rothrock N, Reeve B, Yount S, Amtmann D, Bode R, Buysse D, Choi S, Cook K, Devellis R, DeWalt D, Fries JF, Gershon R, Hahn EA, Lai JS, Pilkonis P, Revicki D, Rose M, Weinfurt K, Hays R; PROMIS Cooperative Group. 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 Nov;63(11):1179-94. Epub 2010 Aug 4.
16. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81. Epub 2008 Sep 30.
17. Patterson BM, Orvets ND, Aleem AW, Keener JD, Calfee RP, Nixon DC, Chamberlain AM. Correlation of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores with legacy patient-reported outcome scores in patients undergoing rotator cuff repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Jun;27(6S):S17-23.
18. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jan;60(1):34-42. Epub 2006 Aug 24.
19. Shoukri MM, Pause CA. Statistical methods for health sciences. 2nd ed. CRC Press; 1998.
20. Jensen RE, Moinpour CM, Potosky AL, Lobo T, Hahn EA, Hays RD, Cella D, Smith AW, Wu XC, Keegan TH, Paddock LE, Stroup AM, Eton DT. Responsiveness of 8 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures in a large, community-based cancer study cohort. Cancer. 2017 Jan 1;123(2):327-35. Epub 2016 Oct 3.
21. Hung M, Baumhauer JF, Licari FW, Bounsanga J, Voss MW, Saltzman CL. Responsiveness of the PROMIS and FAAM instruments in foot and ankle orthopedic population. Foot Ankle Int. 2019 Jan;40(1):56-64. Epub 2018 Oct 4.
22. Kasturi S, Szymonifka J, Burket JC, Berman JR, Kirou KA, Levine AB, Sammaritano LR, Mandl LA. Feasibility, validity, and reliability of the 10-item Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System global health short form in outpatients with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol. 2018 Mar;45(3):397-404. Epub 2018 Feb 1.
23. Hays RD, Spritzer KL, Fries JF, Krishnan E. Responsiveness and minimally important difference for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) 20-item physical functioning short form in a prospective observational study of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015 Jan;74(1):104-7. Epub 2013 Oct 4.
    24. Kendall R, Wagner B, Brodke D, Bounsanga J, Voss M, Gu Y, Spiker R, Lawrence B, Hung M. The relationship of PROMIS pain interference and physical function scales. Pain Med. 2018 Sep 1;19(9):1720-4.
    25. Gruber-Baldini AL, Velozo C, Romero S, Shulman LM. Validation of the PROMIS® measures of self-efficacy for managing chronic conditions. Qual Life Res. 2017 Jul;26(7):1915-24. Epub 2017 Feb 26.
    26. Gerull WD, Okoroafor UC, Guattery J, Goldfarb CA, Wall LB, Calfee RP. Performance of pediatric PROMIS CATs in children with upper extremity fractures. Hand (N Y). 2018 Aug 6:1558944718793195. Epub 2018 Aug 6.
    27. Kazmers NH, Hung M, Rane AA, Bounsanga J, Weng C, Tyser AR. Association of physical function, anxiety, and pain interference in nonshoulder upper extremity patients using the PROMIS platform. J Hand Surg Am. 2017 Oct;42(10):781-7. Epub 2017 Sep 9.
    28. Bernstein DN, Kelly M, Houck JR, Ketz JP, Flemister AS, DiGiovanni BF, Baumhauer JF, Oh I. PROMIS pain interference is superior vs numeric pain rating scale for pain assessment in foot and ankle patients. Foot Ankle Int. 2019 Feb;40(2):139-44. Epub 2018 Oct 4.
    29. Blank AT, Lerman DM, Shaw S, Dadrass F, Zhang Y, Liu W, Hung M, Jones KB, Randall RL. PROMIS® scores in operative metastatic bone disease patients: a multicenter, prospective study. J Surg Oncol. 2018 Sep;118(3):532-5. Epub 2018 Aug 16.
    30. Chen RE, Papuga MO, Voloshin I, Nicandri GT, Goldblatt JP, Bronstein RD, Rouse LM, Maloney MD. Preoperative PROMIS scores predict postoperative outcomes after primary ACL reconstruction. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018 May 8;6(5):2325967118771286.
    31. Dean DM, Ho BS, Lin A, Fuchs D, Ochenjele G, Merk B, Kadakia AR. Predictors of patient-reported function and pain outcomes in operative ankle fractures. Foot Ankle Int. 2017 May;38(5):496-501. Epub 2017 Jan 19.
    32. Ho B, Houck JR, Flemister AS, Ketz J, Oh I, DiGiovanni BF, Baumhauer JF. Preoperative PROMIS scores predict postoperative success in foot and ankle patients. Foot Ankle Int. 2016 Sep;37(9):911-8. Epub 2016 Aug 16.
    33. Nixon DC, Cusworth BM, McCormick JJ, Johnson JE, Klein SE. Patient-reported allergies do not predict poorer PROMIS function, pain, and depression scores following foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Int. 2018 Aug;39(8):949-53. Epub 2018 Apr 12.
    34. Papuga MO, Beck CA, Kates SL, Schwarz EM, Maloney MD. Validation of GAITRite and PROMIS as high-throughput physical function outcome measures following ACL reconstruction. J Orthop Res. 2014 Jun;32(6):793-801. Epub 2014 Feb 14.
    35. Raad M, Jain A, Huang M, Skolasky RL, Sciubba DM, Kebaish KM, Neuman BJ. Validity and responsiveness of PROMIS in adult spinal deformity: the need for a self-image domain. Spine J. 2019 Jan;19(1):50-5. Epub 2018 Jul 25.
    36. Koltsov JCB, Greenfield ST, Soukup D, Do HT, Ellis SJ. Validation of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Computerized Adaptive Tests against the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score for 6 common foot and ankle pathologies. Foot Ankle Int. 2017 Aug;38(8):870-8. Epub 2017 Jun 10.
    37. Quispe JC, Herbert B, Chadayammuri VP, Kim JW, Hao J, Hake M, Hak DJ, Stahel PF, Mauffrey C. Transarticular plating for acute posterior sternoclavicular joint dislocations: a valid treatment option? Int Orthop. 2016 Jul;40(7):1503-8. Epub 2015 Aug 11.
    38. Bozzio AE, Johnson CR, Mauffrey C. Short-term results of percutaneous treatment of acetabular fractures: functional outcomes, radiographic assessment and complications. Int Orthop. 2016 Aug;40(8):1703-8. Epub 2015 Sep 11.
    39. Bernholt D, Wright RW, Matava MJ, Brophy RH, Bogunovic L, Smith MV. Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scores are responsive to early changes in patient outcomes following arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. Arthroscopy. 2018 Apr;34(4):1113-7. Epub 2018 Jan 17.
    40. Rubery PT, Houck J, Mesfin A, Molinari R, Papuga MO. Preoperative Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scores assist in predicting early postoperative success in lumbar discectomy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019 Mar 1;44(5):325-33.
    41. Chen RE, Papuga MO, Nicandri GT, Miller RJ, Voloshin I. Preoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores predict postoperative outcome in total shoulder arthroplasty patients. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Mar;28(3):547-54. Epub 2018 Nov 22.

    Supplemental Digital Content

    Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated. All rights reserved.