Cargando…
The responsiveness of the PROMIS instruments and the qDASH in an upper extremity population
BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the responsiveness of several PROMIS patient-reported outcome measures in patients with hand and upper extremity disorders and provided comparisons with the qDASH instrument. METHODS: The PROMIS Upper Extremity computer adaptive test (UE CAT) v1.2, the PROMIS Physica...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5934915/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29757302 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-017-0019-0 |
_version_ | 1783320207897395200 |
---|---|
author | Hung, Man Saltzman, Charles L. Greene, Tom Voss, Maren W. Bounsanga, Jerry Gu, Yushan Wang, Angela A. Hutchinson, Douglas Tyser, Andrew R. |
author_facet | Hung, Man Saltzman, Charles L. Greene, Tom Voss, Maren W. Bounsanga, Jerry Gu, Yushan Wang, Angela A. Hutchinson, Douglas Tyser, Andrew R. |
author_sort | Hung, Man |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the responsiveness of several PROMIS patient-reported outcome measures in patients with hand and upper extremity disorders and provided comparisons with the qDASH instrument. METHODS: The PROMIS Upper Extremity computer adaptive test (UE CAT) v1.2, the PROMIS Physical Function (PF) CAT v1.2, the PROMIS Pain Interference (PI) CAT v1.1 and the qDASH were administered to patients presenting to an orthopaedic hand clinic during the years 2014–2016, along with anchor questions. The responsiveness of these instruments was assessed using anchor based methods. Changes in functional outcomes were evaluated by paired-sample t-test, effect size, and standardized response mean. RESULTS: There were a total of 255 patients (131 females and 124 males) with an average age of 50.75 years (SD = 15.84) included in our study. Based on the change and no change scores, there were three instances (PI at 3 months, PI >3 months, and qDASH >3 months follow-ups) where scores differed between those experiencing clinically meaningful change versus no clinically meaningful change. Effect sizes for the responsiveness of all instruments were large and ranged from 0.80–1.48. All four instruments demonstrated high responsiveness, with a standardized response mean ranging from 1.05 to 1.63. CONCLUSION: The PROMIS UE CAT, PF CAT, PI CAT, and qDASH are responsive to patient-reported functional change in the hand and upper extremity patient population. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5934915 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-59349152018-05-09 The responsiveness of the PROMIS instruments and the qDASH in an upper extremity population Hung, Man Saltzman, Charles L. Greene, Tom Voss, Maren W. Bounsanga, Jerry Gu, Yushan Wang, Angela A. Hutchinson, Douglas Tyser, Andrew R. J Patient Rep Outcomes Research BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the responsiveness of several PROMIS patient-reported outcome measures in patients with hand and upper extremity disorders and provided comparisons with the qDASH instrument. METHODS: The PROMIS Upper Extremity computer adaptive test (UE CAT) v1.2, the PROMIS Physical Function (PF) CAT v1.2, the PROMIS Pain Interference (PI) CAT v1.1 and the qDASH were administered to patients presenting to an orthopaedic hand clinic during the years 2014–2016, along with anchor questions. The responsiveness of these instruments was assessed using anchor based methods. Changes in functional outcomes were evaluated by paired-sample t-test, effect size, and standardized response mean. RESULTS: There were a total of 255 patients (131 females and 124 males) with an average age of 50.75 years (SD = 15.84) included in our study. Based on the change and no change scores, there were three instances (PI at 3 months, PI >3 months, and qDASH >3 months follow-ups) where scores differed between those experiencing clinically meaningful change versus no clinically meaningful change. Effect sizes for the responsiveness of all instruments were large and ranged from 0.80–1.48. All four instruments demonstrated high responsiveness, with a standardized response mean ranging from 1.05 to 1.63. CONCLUSION: The PROMIS UE CAT, PF CAT, PI CAT, and qDASH are responsive to patient-reported functional change in the hand and upper extremity patient population. Springer International Publishing 2017-11-28 /pmc/articles/PMC5934915/ /pubmed/29757302 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-017-0019-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Research Hung, Man Saltzman, Charles L. Greene, Tom Voss, Maren W. Bounsanga, Jerry Gu, Yushan Wang, Angela A. Hutchinson, Douglas Tyser, Andrew R. The responsiveness of the PROMIS instruments and the qDASH in an upper extremity population |
title | The responsiveness of the PROMIS instruments and the qDASH in an upper extremity population |
title_full | The responsiveness of the PROMIS instruments and the qDASH in an upper extremity population |
title_fullStr | The responsiveness of the PROMIS instruments and the qDASH in an upper extremity population |
title_full_unstemmed | The responsiveness of the PROMIS instruments and the qDASH in an upper extremity population |
title_short | The responsiveness of the PROMIS instruments and the qDASH in an upper extremity population |
title_sort | responsiveness of the promis instruments and the qdash in an upper extremity population |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5934915/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29757302 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-017-0019-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hungman theresponsivenessofthepromisinstrumentsandtheqdashinanupperextremitypopulation AT saltzmancharlesl theresponsivenessofthepromisinstrumentsandtheqdashinanupperextremitypopulation AT greenetom theresponsivenessofthepromisinstrumentsandtheqdashinanupperextremitypopulation AT vossmarenw theresponsivenessofthepromisinstrumentsandtheqdashinanupperextremitypopulation AT bounsangajerry theresponsivenessofthepromisinstrumentsandtheqdashinanupperextremitypopulation AT guyushan theresponsivenessofthepromisinstrumentsandtheqdashinanupperextremitypopulation AT wangangelaa theresponsivenessofthepromisinstrumentsandtheqdashinanupperextremitypopulation AT hutchinsondouglas theresponsivenessofthepromisinstrumentsandtheqdashinanupperextremitypopulation AT tyserandrewr theresponsivenessofthepromisinstrumentsandtheqdashinanupperextremitypopulation AT hungman responsivenessofthepromisinstrumentsandtheqdashinanupperextremitypopulation AT saltzmancharlesl responsivenessofthepromisinstrumentsandtheqdashinanupperextremitypopulation AT greenetom responsivenessofthepromisinstrumentsandtheqdashinanupperextremitypopulation AT vossmarenw responsivenessofthepromisinstrumentsandtheqdashinanupperextremitypopulation AT bounsangajerry responsivenessofthepromisinstrumentsandtheqdashinanupperextremitypopulation AT guyushan responsivenessofthepromisinstrumentsandtheqdashinanupperextremitypopulation AT wangangelaa responsivenessofthepromisinstrumentsandtheqdashinanupperextremitypopulation AT hutchinsondouglas responsivenessofthepromisinstrumentsandtheqdashinanupperextremitypopulation AT tyserandrewr responsivenessofthepromisinstrumentsandtheqdashinanupperextremitypopulation |