Validation of a photophobia symptom impact scale.

BACKGROUND: Routine assessment of photophobia in the clinical setting may underestimate the presence and severity of this condition. We aimed to develop and validate a questionnaire to improve evaluation of the impact of photophobia on activities of daily living, and to determine the relationship of this questionnaire to psychophysical assessment of light sensitivity thresholds. METHODS: We developed the 17-item Utah Photophobia Symptom Impact Scale (UPSIS-17) and compared its psychometric properties to the 8-item Korean Photophobia Questionnaire (KUMC-8). Ninety five subjects with or without light sensitivity completed both questionnaires; 72 also completed laboratory-based assessment of light sensitivity thresholds. We used Rasch analysis to evaluate instrument targeting, including internal consistency and reliability. Correlation analysis was used to assess the relationship between questionnaire scores and light sensitivity thresholds. RESULTS: We observed correlation between UPSIS-17 and KUMC-8, r = 0.72 (p < 0.0001). Higher UPSIS-17 scores correlated with light sensitivity thresholds, r = -0.42 (p < 0.0001), whereas KUMC-8 scores did not significantly correlate with light sensitivity thresholds, r = -0.21 (p = 0.072). UPSIS-17 showed better instrument targeting than KUMC-8 on Rasch analysis. Person-item maps allowed for identification of questions that could be removed without affecting questionnaire validity measures. CONCLUSION: This study resulted in a shortened, 12-item questionnaire. The UPSIS-12 retained significant correlation with both the KUMC-8 and light sensitivity thresholds, yielding a simpler tool for symptom assessment, while retaining validity. This expanded tool may be useful in clinical, as well as research settings, for collection of data about disability due to photophobia.

Evaluation of Version 2.0 of the PROMIS Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test in Nonshoulder Upper Extremity Patients.

PURPOSE: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test (UE CAT) was recently updated to version 2.0 (v2.0). We hypothesized that the PROMIS UE CAT v2.0 would exhibit improved performance characteristics compared with the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) when administered to a nonshoulder upper extremity patient population. METHODS: The UE CAT v2.0, Physical Function (PF) CAT v2.0, and the QuickDASH were each prospectively administered via tablet computer to all patients presenting to a tertiary hand and upper extremity clinic between April 2017 and October 2017. Patient responses were analyzed, and the mean, range, floor and ceiling effect, and correlations between instruments were calculated. RESULTS: Among 825 patients, the mean UE CAT v2.0 score was 38.3 (SD 10.7) with a range of 15 to 61 and interquartile range of 15.4. The UE CAT v2.0 had a strong correlation with the QuickDASH (r = -0.749) and the PF CAT v2.0 (r = 0.719). No patient scored between 56 and 60, indicating a gap in scoring in that range. The UE CAT v2.0 demonstrated a floor effect of 1%, a ceiling effect of 6.9%, and a high internal consistency with a Cronbach alpha of 0.99. CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS UE CAT v2.0 demonstrated improved ceiling effects, range, and a decreased gap in scoring compared with prior versions. Limitations of the PROMIS UE CAT v2.0 are still present, but updates have led to an incremental improvement over prior versions, demonstrating the ability to influence PROMIS instrument performance through upgrades. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The updated PROMIS UE CAT v2.0 still demonstrates a ceiling effect and gap in scores at the upper end of the instrument, both of which may limit discrimination between different levels of upper extremity function for high-functioning patients.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference After Carpal Tunnel Release Using the PROMIS Platform.

PURPOSE: In light of recently-proposed quality measures for carpal tunnel release (CTR), elucidating the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for selected outcome measures will be important when interpreting treatment responses. Our purpose was to estimate the MCID of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) instruments and the short Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) following CTR. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing isolated unilateral CTR between July 2014 and October 2016 were identified. Outcomes included the PROMIS Upper Extremity (UE) Computer Adaptive Test (CAT), Physical Function (PF) CAT, QuickDASH, and Pain Interference (PI) CAT. For inclusion, pretreatment baseline (within 60 days of surgery) and postoperative (6-90 days) UE or PF CAT scores were required, as well as a response on a 5-point Likert scale to the question "How much relief and/or improvement do you feel you have experienced as a result of your treatment?" The MCID was calculated using SD and minimum detectable change (MDC) distribution methods. RESULTS: In response to the Likert scale question, 88.6% of patients reported improvement at a mean of 14.8 days after surgery. The infrequency of patients reporting no change (5 of 44; 11.4%) precluded calculation of a statistically sound anchor-based MCID value. The MCID values, as calculated using the one-half SD method, were 3.6, 4.6, 10.4, and 3.4 for the UE CAT, PF CAT, QuickDASH, and PI CAT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We have calculated MCID values for the UE CAT, PF CAT, QuickDASH, and PI CAT for patients undergoing CTR. Although the small number of patients reporting no change and minimal change after surgery precluded an anchor-based MCID calculation, we report estimates using the one-half SD method for the MCID following CTR. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These MCID estimates will be helpful when interpreting CTR clinical outcomes and for powering prospective trials.

Psychometric evaluation of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function and Pain Interference Computer Adaptive Test for subacromial impingement syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function Computer Adaptive Test (CAT) was previously validated for rotator cuff disease and shoulder instability. This study evaluated the psychometric properties of the PROMIS Physical Function (PF) CAT, PROMIS Pain Interference (PI) CAT, and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Shoulder Function Score for subacromial impingement syndrome. METHODS: PROMIS PF CAT, PI CAT, and ASES (Pain, Function, Total) were collected on all visits for 2 surgeons between January 2016 and August 2016. New patients, aged 18 years and older, were selected by International Classification of Diseases code for impingement syndrome of the shoulder. The mean number of questions answered determined efficiency. Person-item maps were created to determine ceiling and floor effects as well as person reliability. Convergent validity was determined by comparison of PROMIS domains to ASES scores with Pearson correlations. RESULTS: For PROMIS PF CAT, the mean number of items answered was 4.54 (range 4-12). The ceiling effect was 1.56%, and the floor effect was 3.13%. The person reliability was 0.94. Pearson correlation coefficients between the PF CAT and ASES were 0.664 (ASES Function), 0.426 (ASES Pain), and 0.649 (ASES Total). For PROMIS PI CAT, the mean number of items answered was 4.27 (range 3-11). The ceiling effect was 4.69%, and the floor effect was 8.33%. The person reliability was 0.92. Pearson correlation coefficients between the PI CAT and ASES were: 0.667 (ASES Function), 0.594 (ASES Pain), and 0.729 (ASES Total). CONCLUSIONS: The psychometric properties of PROMIS PF and PI CATs were favorable for subacromial impingement syndrome.

Application of machine learning for diagnostic prediction of root caries.

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to utilise machine learning methods in artificial intelligence to select the most relevant variables in classifying the presence and absence of root caries and to evaluate the model performance. BACKGROUND: Dental caries is one of the most prevalent oral health problems. Artificial intelligence can be used to develop models for identification of root caries risk and to gain valuable insights, but it has not been applied in dentistry. Accurately identifying root caries may guide treatment decisions, leading to better oral health outcomes. METHODS: Data were obtained from the 2015-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and were randomly divided into training and test sets. Several supervised machine learning methods were applied to construct a tool that was capable of classifying variables into the presence and absence of root caries. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and area under the receiver operating curve were computed. RESULTS: Of the machine learning algorithms developed, support vector machine demonstrated the best performance with an accuracy of 97.1%, precision of 95.1%, sensitivity of 99.6% and specificity of 94.3% for identifying root caries. The area under the curve was 0.997. Age was the feature most strongly associated with root caries. CONCLUSION: The machine learning algorithms developed in this study perform well and allow for clinical implementation and utilisation by dental and nondental professionals. Clinicians are encouraged to adopt the algorithms from this study for early intervention and treatment of root caries for the ageing population of the United States, and for attaining precision dental medicine.

Modified dynamic gait index and limits of stability in myotonic dystrophy type 1.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to describe and compare the performance of balance and walking tests in relation to self-reported fall history in adults with myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1). METHODS: Twenty-two (13 male) participants with DM1 completed, a 6-month fall history questionnaire, the modified Dynamic Gait Index (mDGI), limits of stability (LoS) testing, and 10-m walking tests. RESULTS: Mean (SD) falls in 6 months was 3.7 (3.1), and 19 (86%) participants reported at least 1 fall. Significant differences in mDGI scores (P = 0.006) and 10-m fast walking gait velocity (P = 0.02) were found between those who had been classified as "fallers" and those who had been classified as "nonfallers." Significant correlations were found between mDGI scores and 10-m walking time. DISCUSSION: Falls are common in DM1, and the mDGI may have potential to distinguish fallers from nonfallers, whereas the LoS failed to detect such impairment. Future studies should further explore use of the mDGI in DM1. Muscle Nerve 58: 694-699, 2018.

What Are the MCIDs for PROMIS, NDI, and ODI Instruments Among Patients With Spinal Conditions?

BACKGROUND: As new Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) instruments are incorporated into clinical practice, determining how large a change on these instruments represents a clinically relevant difference is important; the metric that describes this is the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Prior research on MCIDs of the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) has produced values ranging from 5 to 10 points, but these measures have not been presented in relation to MCID values of PROMIS instruments. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: To establish a comprehensive repository of MCID values calculated both with distribution-based and anchor-based methods for four outcomes instruments in spine care, we asked: (1) What are the MCIDs of the PROMIS Physical Function (PF); (2) the PROMIS Pain Interference (PI); (3) the NDI; and (4) the ODI among spine patients? METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of previously tested diagnostic measures on 1945 consecutive patients with a reference standard applied. All patients aged 18 years and older visiting an orthopaedic spine clinic between October 2013 and January 2017 completed the PROMIS PF and PI, NDI, and ODI on tablet computers before their clinic visits. Patients were grouped by change level (self-report of meaningful change versus slight or no change) using an anchor question in comparison to baseline. Descriptive statistics, two anchor-based MCID values (mean change and receiver operating characteristic curve), and five distribution-based values (SD at 1/2 and 1/3 values and minimum detectable change [MDC] at 90%, 95%, and 99%) were analyzed four different times between 3 months and > 6 months of followup. A total of 1945 included patients with a wide range of spine conditions and varying treatments had a mean age of 58 years (SD = 15.5), were 51% (988 of 1945) male, 90% (1754 of 1945) self-identified as white, and 5% (94 of 1945) as Hispanic with 1% to 2% of patients refusing participation. RESULTS: The PROMIS PF mean change scores in the changed group (much worse, worse, improved, or much improved) ranged between 7 and 8 points. MCID values ranged from 3 to 23 points depending on the method of calculation with a median of 8. For the PROMIS PI, mean change scores ranged from 8 to 9 points and MCID values from 1 to 24 points with a median of 8. For the NDI, mean change scores ranged from 13 to 18 points and MCID values ranged from 6 to 43 points with a median of 18. For the ODI, mean change ranged from 17 to 19 points and MCID values ranged from 7 to 51 points with a median of 24. For each instrument, distribution-based SD yielded the smallest values, followed by anchor-based methods, with MDC yielding the largest MCID values. CONCLUSIONS: This study uses a range of methods for determining MCIDs of the PROMIS PF and PI, NDI, and ODI from anchor-based to distribution-based methods. MCIDs do not have a static value for a given outcome measure, but have a range of values and are dependent on the method calculated. The lowest MCIDs identified for the NDI and ODI are consistent with prior studies, but those at the upper range are much higher. Anchor-based methods are thought to be most relevant in the clinical setting and are more easily understood by clinicians, whereas the distribution-based MCIDs are useful in understanding population breadth. Lower MCID values may be most appropriate for screening purposes or low-risk effects, and the median or higher MCID values should be used for high-risk effects or outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, diagnostic study.

Psychometrics of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function instrument administered by computerized adaptive testing and the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand in the orthopedic elbow patient population.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the psychometric properties of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) instrument administered through computerized adaptive testing (CAT) compared with the traditional full-length Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH). METHODS: The PROMIS PF CAT and the DASH were administered to 1759 patients seeking care for elbow conditions. This study used Rasch partial credit modeling to analyze the instruments with item fit, internal reliability, response category thresholds, dimensionality, local independence, gender differential item functioning, and floor and ceiling effects. RESULTS: The PROMIS PF CAT and DASH had satisfactory item fit for all but 1 item on both measures. Internal reliabilities were high for both measures. Two items on the DASH and 4 items on the PF CAT showed nonordered category thresholds. Unidimensionality was adequate, and local independence was supported for both instruments. Gender bias was found for 4 items on the PF CAT and 12 items on the DASH. Both measures had adequate instrument targeting and satisfactory floor and ceiling effects. CONCLUSION: The PROMIS PF CAT and the DASH both showed sufficient unidimensionality, good item fit, and good local independence with the exception of high levels of gender item bias, particularly for the DASH. Further scale evaluation should address item bias and item response categories for these instruments. Overall, the PROMIS PF CAT is an effective outcome instrument to measure function in patients with elbow disorders that requires significantly fewer questions than the DASH.

Profiling Arthritis Pain with a Decision Tree.

BACKGROUND: Arthritis is the leading cause of work disability and contributes to lost productivity. Previous studies showed that various factors predict pain, but they were limited in sample size and scope from a data analytics perspective. OBJECTIVES: The current study applied machine learning algorithms to identify predictors of pain associated with arthritis in a large national sample. METHODS: Using data from the 2011 to 2012 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, data mining was performed to develop algorithms to identify factors and patterns that contribute to risk of pain. The model incorporated over 200 variables within the algorithm development, including demographic data, medical claims, laboratory tests, patient-reported outcomes, and sociobehavioral characteristics. RESULTS: The developed algorithms to predict pain utilize variables readily available in patient medical records. Using the machine learning classification algorithm J48 with 50-fold cross-validations, we found that the model can significantly distinguish those with and without pain (c-statistics = 0.9108). The F measure was 0.856, accuracy rate was 85.68%, sensitivity was 0.862, specificity was 0.852, and precision was 0.849. CONCLUSION: Physical and mental function scores, the ability to climb stairs, and overall assessment of feeling were the most discriminative predictors from the 12 identified variables, predicting pain with 86% accuracy for individuals with arthritis. In this era of rapid expansion of big data application, the nature of healthcare research is moving from hypothesis-driven to data-driven solutions. The algorithms generated in this study offer new insights on individualized pain prediction, allowing the development of cost-effective care management programs for those experiencing arthritis pain.

The relationship between family support; pain and depression in elderly with arthritis.

The prevalence and chronic nature of arthritis make it the most common cause of disability among U.S.A adults. Family support reduces the negative impact of chronic conditions generally but its role in pain and depression for arthritic conditions is not well understood. A total of 844 males (35.0%) and 1567 females (65.0%) with arthritic conditions (n = 2411) were drawn from the 2012 Health and Retirement Study to examine the effect of family support on pain and depressive symptoms. Using regression analysis and controlling for age, ethnicity, gender, marital/educational status and employment/income, physical function/disability status, pain and antidepressant medications, and other clinical indicators of chronic health conditions, we examined the effects of family support (spouse, children, other) on pain and depression levels. Results indicated that depressive symptoms decreased significantly with strong family and spousal support (p < .05). Pain decreased as support levels increased, but was non-statistically significant. This study provides new insights into the relationship between family support, pain, and depression for individuals with arthritis. Future longitudinal studies are needed to evaluate family support and relationships over a wider spectrum of demographics.

Examination of the PROMIS upper extremity item bank.

STUDY DESIGN: Clinical measurement. INTRODUCTION: The psychometric properties of the PROMIS v1.2 UE item bank were tested on various samples prior to its release, but have not been fully evaluated among the orthopaedic population. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: This study assesses the performance of the UE item bank within the UE orthopaedic patient population. METHODS: The UE item bank was administered to 1197 adult patients presenting to a tertiary orthopaedic clinic specializing in hand and UE conditions and was examined using traditional statistics and Rasch analysis. RESULTS: The UE item bank fits a unidimensional model (outfit MNSQ range from 0.64 to 1.70) and has adequate reliabilities (person = 0.84; item = 0.82) and local independence (item residual correlations range from -0.37 to 0.34). Only one item exhibits gender differential item functioning. Most items target low levels of function. DISCUSSION: The UE item bank is a useful clinical assessment tool. Additional items covering higher functions are needed to enhance validity. CONCLUSIONS: Supplemental testing is recommended for patients at higher levels of function until more high function UE items are developed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2c.

Evaluation of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test.

PURPOSE: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test (UE CAT) has recently been made available by the National Institutes of Health to measure physical function outcomes in the upper extremity. We hypothesized that the UE CAT would psychometrically outperform the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function Computer Adaptive Test (PF CAT) in a hand patient population. METHODS: The UE CAT, PF CAT, and DASH were each electronically administered to all adult patients who presented to a tertiary hand and upper extremity (nonshoulder) orthopedic clinic. Patient responses were retrospectively studied to determine the validity, reliability, and floor/ceiling effects of all 3 instruments using the Rasch Partial Credit Model. Responder burden and Pearson correlations were calculated for each instrument. RESULTS: A total of 379 patients completed the UE CAT, PF CAT, and the DASH. On average, 6 UE CAT, 9 PF CAT, and 30 DASH questions were administered to each patient. All 3 instruments were each highly correlated with each other. Floor effects were low and similar between all instruments; however, ceiling effects were higher in the UE CAT (10.82%) than in the PF CAT (1.32%) or DASH (5.28%). High person reliability (PR) and item reliability (IR) were found for all 3 metrics: UE CAT (α = 0.99; PR = 0.91; IR = 0.94); PF CAT (α = 0.95; PR = 0.89; IR = 0.96); and DASH (α = 0.97; PR = 0.95; IR = 0.99). The UE CAT questions had the best item-fit: only 1 of 15 UE CAT items had poor fit in contrast to 4 of 30 DASH items and 7 of 33 PF CAT items. CONCLUSIONS: The psychometric properties of the UE CAT compare favorably with the PF CAT and the DASH in nonshoulder upper extremity patients. The relatively large ceiling effect found in the UE CAT could be improved with item bank expansion to include items at the upper end of function. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The UE CAT is a useful patient-reported outcome measure that merits further investigation.

Responsiveness of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) instruments in patients with spinal disorders.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Information System (PROMIS) instruments are an important advancement in the use of PROs, but need to be evaluated with longitudinal data to determine whether they are responsive to change in specific clinical populations. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the responsiveness of the PROMIS Physical Function (PF), PROMIS Pain Interference (PI), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This study entailed prospective data collection from consecutive patients aged 18 and older, visiting a university-based orthopaedic spine clinic between October 2013 and January 2017. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 763 participants in the sample had a mean age of 58 (SD = 15) years and the sample was 50.2% male and 92.8% Caucasian. OUTCOME MEASURES: The PROMIS PF and PROMIS PI Computerized Adaptive Tests along with either the NDI or ODI instruments were administered on tablet computers before clinic visits. Global rating of change questions relating to pain and function levels was also administered. METHODS: Baseline scores were compared with follow-up scores at four different time-points from 3-months to 6-months and beyond. Patient demographics, mean scores, paired-sample t tests, Standardized Response Mean (SRM), and Effect Size (ES) were analyzed to determine instrument responsiveness. This project was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under award number U01AR067138 and the authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. RESULTS: The PROMIS instruments were strongly correlated with each other as well as with the NDI and ODI. Responsiveness was significant on all four instruments at every time-point assessed (paired sample t tests ranged from p < .001 to p = .049). SRM's were large and over 0.94 for every instrument at every time-point. Cohen's d ES were large and over 0.96 for all at all time-points, except for the NDI which had ES ranging from 0.74 to 0.83. This study showed large effect sizes and responsiveness of the PROMIS PF, PROMIS PI, NDI and ODI in a population of orthopaedic patients with spine pathologies. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates strong responsiveness of the PROMIS PF and PROMIS PI in a spine clinic population.

PROMIS and FAAM Minimal Clinically Important Differences in Foot and Ankle Orthopedics.

BACKGROUND:: Establishing score points that reflect meaningful change from the patient perspective is important for interpreting patient-reported outcomes. This study estimated the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) values of 2 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) instruments and the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) Sports subscale within a foot and ankle orthopedic population. METHODS:: Patients seen for foot and ankle conditions at an orthopedic clinic were administered the PROMIS Physical Function (PF) v1.2, the PROMIS Pain Interference (PI) v1.1, and the FAAM Sports at baseline and all follow-up visits. MCID estimation was conducted using anchor-based and distribution-based methods. RESULTS:: A total of 3069 patients, mean age of 51 years (range = 18-94), were included. The MCIDs for the PROMIS PF ranged from approximately 3 to 30 points (median = 11.3) depending on the methods being used. The MCIDs ranged from 3 to 25 points (median = 8.9) for the PROMIS PI, and from 9 to 77 points (median = 32.5) for the FAAM Sports. CONCLUSIONS:: This study established a range of MCIDs in the PROMIS PF, PROMIS PI, and FAAM Sports indicating meaningful change in patient condition. MCID values were consistent across follow-up periods, but were different across methods. Values below the 25th percentile of MCIDs may be useful for low-risk clinical decisions. Midrange values (eg, near the median) should be used for high stakes decisions in clinical practice (ie, surgery referrals). The MCID values within the interquartile range should be utilized for most decision making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: Level I, diagnostic study, testing of previously developed diagnostic measure on consecutive patients with reference standard applied.

Responsiveness of the PROMIS and FAAM Instruments in Foot and Ankle Orthopedic Population.

BACKGROUND:: Investigating the responsiveness of an instrument is important in order to provide meaningful interpretation of clinical outcomes. This study examined the responsiveness of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF), the PROMIS Pain Interference (PI), and the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) Sports subscale in an orthopedic sample with foot and ankle ailments. METHODS:: Patients presenting to an orthopedic foot and ankle clinic during the years 2014-2017 responded to the PROMIS and FAAM instruments prior to their clinical appointments. The responsiveness of the PROMIS PF v1.2, PROMIS PI v1.1, and FAAM Sports were assessed using paired samples t test, effect size (ES), and standardized response mean (SRM) at 4 different follow-up points. A total of 785 patients with an average age of 52 years (SD = 17) were included. RESULTS:: The PROMIS PF had ESs of 0.95 to 1.22 across the 4 time points (3, >3, 6, and <6 months) and SRMs of 1.04 to 1.43. The PROMIS PI had ESs of 1.04 to 1.63 and SRMs of 1.17 to 1.23. For the FAAM Sports, the ESs were 1.25 to 1.31 and SRMs were 1.07 to 1.20. The ability to detect changes via paired samples t test provided mixed results. But in general, the patients with improvement had statistically significant improved scores, and the worsening patients had statistically significant worse scores. CONCLUSION:: The PROMIS PF, PROMIS PI, and FAAM Sports were sensitive and responsive to changes in patient-reported health. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: Level II, prospective comparative study.

Establishing minimum clinically important difference values for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint reconstruction, and knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint reconstruction in orthopaedics.

AIM: To establish minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for measurements in an orthopaedic patient population with joint disorders. METHODS: Adult patients aged 18 years and older seeking care for joint conditions at an orthopaedic clinic took the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS® PF) computerized adaptive test (CAT), hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint reconstruction (HOOS JR), and the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint reconstruction (KOOS JR) from February 2014 to April 2017. MCIDs were calculated using anchor-based and distribution-based methods. Patient reports of meaningful change in function since their first clinic encounter were used as an anchor. RESULTS: There were 2226 patients who participated with a mean age of 61.16 (SD = 12.84) years, 41.6% male, and 89.7% Caucasian. Mean change ranged from 7.29 to 8.41 for the PROMIS® PF CAT, from 14.81 to 19.68 for the HOOS JR, and from 14.51 to 18.85 for the KOOS JR. ROC cut-offs ranged from 1.97-8.18 for the PF CAT, 6.33-43.36 for the HOOS JR, and 2.21-8.16 for the KOOS JR. Distribution-based methods estimated MCID values ranging from 2.45 to 21.55 for the PROMIS® PF CAT; from 3.90 to 43.61 for the HOOS JR, and from 3.98 to 40.67 for the KOOS JR. The median MCID value in the range was similar to the mean change score for each measure and was 7.9 for the PF CAT, 18.0 for the HOOS JR, and 15.1 for the KOOS JR. CONCLUSION: This is the first comprehensive study providing a wide range of MCIDs for the PROMIS® PF, HOOS JR, and KOOS JR in orthopaedic patients with joint ailments.

Evaluating instrument responsiveness in joint function: The HOOS JR, the KOOS JR, and the PROMIS PF CAT.

12345Responsiveness is the ability to detect change over time and is an important aspect of measures used to detect treatment effects. The purpose of this study was to assess the responsiveness of the HOOS JR, the KOOS JR, and the PROMIS Physical Function (PF) computerized adaptive test (CAT) in a joint reconstruction practice. 983 patients were evaluated for joint conditions between 2014 and 2017 in an orthopaedic clinic and completed the three instruments at baseline and 3 and/or 6-month follow-up visits. Average age was 61.03 years (SD = 12.33, Range = 18-90 years) and the majority of the patients were White (n = 875, 89.0%). Three-month responsiveness was calculated two ways, as between 80 and 100 days and as 90 days and beyond. Six-month responsiveness was calculated as 170-190 days and as 180 days and beyond. All changes from baseline scores were significant at the 3-, >3-, and >6-month follow-up (p < 0.05). All three measures showed large effect sizes, ranging from 0.80-1.20 at each time-point. The standardized response mean was large for each measure and at each time-point (Range = 1.06-1.53). This study demonstrated the responsiveness of the HOOS JR, KOOS JR, and the PROMIS PF in adult reconstruction patients. The PROMIS PF was consistently the most responsive instrument in this analysis. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The HOOS JR, KOOS JR, and PROMIS PF are useful clinical instruments for assessing treatment change and may be selected as relevant to the specific needs and conditions of the adult joint reconstruction patient population. © 2017 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 36:1178-1184, 2018.

PROMIS PF CAT Outperforms the ODI and SF-36 Physical Function Domain in Spine Patients.

STUDY DESIGN: The Oswestry Disability Index v2.0 (ODI), SF36 Physical Function Domain (SF-36 PFD), and PROMIS Physical Function CAT v1.2 (PF CAT) questionnaires were prospectively collected from 1607 patients complaining of back or leg pain, visiting a university-based spine clinic. All questionnaires were collected electronically, using a tablet computer. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the psychometric properties of the PROMIS PF CAT with the ODI and SF36 Physical Function Domain in the same patient population. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Evidence-based decision-making is improved by using high-quality patient-reported outcomes measures. Prior studies have revealed the shortcomings of the ODI and SF36, commonly used in spine patients. The PROMIS Network has developed measures with excellent psychometric properties. The Physical Function domain, delivered by Computerized Adaptive Testing (PF CAT), performs well in the spine patient population, though to-date direct comparisons with common measures have not been performed. METHODS: Standard Rasch analysis was performed to directly compare the psychometrics of the PF CAT, ODI, and SF36 PFD. Spearman correlations were computed to examine the correlations of the three instruments. Time required for administration was also recorded. RESULTS: One thousand six hundred seven patients were administered all assessments. The time required to answer all items in the PF CAT, ODI, and SF-36 PFD was 44, 169, and 99 seconds. The ceiling and floor effects were excellent for the PF CAT (0.81%, 3.86%), while the ceiling effects were marginal and floor effects quite poor for the ODI (6.91% and 44.24%) and SF-36 PFD (5.97% and 23.65%). All instruments significantly correlated with each other. CONCLUSION: The PROMIS PF CAT outperforms the ODI and SF-36 PFD in the spine patient population and is highly correlated. It has better coverage, while taking less time to administer with fewer questions to answer. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Dietary and Supplemental Vitamin C and D on Symptom Severity and Physical Function in Knee Osteoarthritis.

Vitamins C and D have been associated with decreasing pain and increasing function but these associations are not definitive. This cross-sectional study explores what relationships supplemental and dietary intake of vitamins C and D have on pain severity and physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Using data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative, we performed regression analyses to examine relationships between vitamins C and D, pain, and function. Dietary vitamin D and dietary vitamin C were divided into >90th, 50th-90th, and <50th percentile. The high percentile group for supplemental vitamin D was divided into >85th percentile, whereas the high percentile group for supplemental vitamin C was divided into >90th percentile. We found the 90th/85th percentile levels of dietary and supplemental vitamin D to be positively associated with pain (ß = 0.180; p = 0.028) and inversely related to physical function (ß = -0.150, p = 0.028), respectively. Daily intake of vitamin C showed no statistical significance. We found that supplementary vitamin D was strongly associated with lessened disability for knee OA patients. The unexpected finding that associated dietary vitamin D with greater knee pain merits further study.

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 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.