A team from New York set out to compare the effectiveness of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) with more traditional, validated patient-reported outcome measures for osteoarthritis.
Do New Patient Outcome Measures Work Better? Really?
1 min read Premium comments
#osteoarthritis#patientreportedoutcomemeasuresSecondary#promis
Their work, “Relationship Between the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System and Traditional Patient-Reported Outcomes for Osteoarthritis,” was published in the February 2019 edition of The Journal of Arthroplasty.
Co-author James Slover, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon at NYU Langone Health, explained the study to OTW, “There has been significant investment in collection of Patient Reported Outcome Data using the newly developed PROMIS measures, but very little study on how these measures relate with more traditional measures that have been well validated in the orthopedic field. This relationship is important for clinicians and researchers using patient reported outcomes to evaluate patients with arthritis making this transition this is important to understand.”
Co-author Raj Karia, M.P.H. summarized the results of the study to OTW, “PROMIS Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT) scores demonstrated a strong correlation with scores obtained using the traditional KOOS, JR [Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Joint Replacement] or HOOS, JR [Hip Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Joint Replacement] patient reported outcome instruments.”
Dr. Slover told OTW, “Clinicians and researchers should note that PROMIS CATs demonstrated a strong correlation with KOOS-JR or HOOS-JR, which means they can confidently use PROMIS CAT scores to measure patient reported outcomes.
“Future studies should further investigate the limitations of global assessment health surveys in capturing disease-specific changes following TJA.”
React:
Discussion
This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?
Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.
We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.
Join the conversation
Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.