Linking QuickDASH and PROMIS Upper-Extremity Computer-Adaptive Test Scores in Hand Surgery: A Crosswalk Study.

PURPOSE: Assessment of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for hand and upper-extremity surgery patients using measures such as the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (qDASH), as well as general measures including the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity Physical Function domain via a Computer-Adaptive Test (PROMIS UE CAT), has become commonplace. The aim of this study was to link, for crosswalking, the qDASH measure to both versions of the PROMIS UE CAT (v1.2 and v2.0). METHODS: We included 18,944 hand and upper-extremity patients who completed both versions of the PROMIS UE CAT and the qDASH at the same clinical encounter. Shoulder pathology was excluded. Score linkage was performed using the R package equate, and multiple equating models (linear regression, identity, mean, linear, equipercentile, and circle-arc models) were used to establish crosswalk tables. RESULTS: Mean qDASH and PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 scores were 38.2 (SD = 23.1) and 36.6 (SD = 9.8), respectively. Mean qDASH and PROMIS UE CAT v2.0 scores were 37.3 (SD = 21.8) and 38.3 (SD = 10.4), respectively. Pearson correlations had very strong linear relationships between the qDASH and the PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 and PROMIS UE CAT v2.0 (r = -0.83 [-0.84, -0.92] and r = -0.80 [-0.81, -0.80], respectively). For the equipercentile equating models, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) had very strong positive relationships to linking measures with ICC = 0.85 (0.84, 0.86) for the qDASH-UE CAT v1.2 crosswalk and ICC = 0.83 (0.82, 0.84) for the qDASH-UE CAT v2.0 crosswalk. CONCLUSIONS: The linkages establish crosswalk tables using equipercentile equating models to convert the PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 and v2.0 scores to the qDASH and vice versa. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study provides crosswalk tables for commonly collected PROMs in hand surgery, increasing the comparability of results between centers using different PROMs to study the same conditions or treatments.

Socioeconomic and insurance-related disparities in disease-specific survival among patients with metastatic bone disease.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 5% of cancer patients in the United States presented with metastatic bone disease (MBD) at diagnosis. Current study explores the disparities in survival for patients with MBD. METHODS: Patients with the diagnosis of MBD at presentation for the five most common primary anatomical sites were extracted from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Census tract-level dataset (2010-2016). Kaplan-Meier and Cox Proportional Hazard models were used to evaluate survival, and prognostic factors for each cohort. Prognostic significance of socioeconomic status (SES) and insurance status were ascertained. RESULTS: The five most common anatomical-sites with MBD at presentation included "lung" (n = 59 739), "prostate" (n = 19 732), "breast" (n = 16 244), "renal and urothelium" (n = 7718) and "colon" (n= 3068). Lower SES was an independent risk factor for worse disease-specific survival (DSS) for patients with MBD originating from lung, prostate, breast and colon. Lack of insurance was an independent risk factor for worse DSS for MBD patients with primary tumors in lung and breast. CONCLUSIONS: MBD patients from the five most common primary sites demonstrated SES and insurance-related disparities in disease-specific survival. This is the first and largest study to explore SES and insurance-related disparities among patients specifically afflicted with MBD. Our findings highlight vulnerability of patients with MBD across multiple primary sites to financial toxicity.

Determining the clinical significance of the PROMIS physical function score in the setting of femur fractures.

BACKGROUND: To adequately utilize patient reported outcome scores in the clinical setting, accurate determination of a cohort-specific minimal clinically important differences (MCID) is necessary. The purpose of this study was to assess MCID for Patient Reported Outcome Information System Physical Function Scores (PROMIS®) Physical Function (PF) in a sample of patients who have undergone operative fixation for femur fractures. METHODS: All patients at a single Level 1 trauma center who were treated for operative femur fractures were identified by Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes (27,244, 27,245, 27,506, 27,507). PROMIS PF was collected as part of routine clinical care via computer adaptive testing (CAT). MCID calculations were performed using both anchor-based and distribution-based methods. RESULTS: A total of 182 patients with 723 score observations were included in the overall distribution-based analysis and 131 patients with 309 score observations were included in the anchor-based analysis. In the overall cohort, the average age was 53.1 (SD 22.3), and 45% of participants were female. MCID for PROMIS PF scores was 5.43 in the distribution-based method and 5.18 in the anchor-based method. Overall scores in the distribution group improved from mean of 27.4 (SD 7.0) at the first postoperative visit to a mean of 36.7 (SD 10.0) at a subsequent follow up visit. Overall scores in the anchor group improved from mean of 26.7 (SD 7.3) at the first postoperative visit to a mean of 37.5 (SD 9.3) at a subsequent follow up visit. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies two MCID values (5.18, 5.43) based on two calculation methods for PROMIS physical function scores in the operative femur fracture population. This data could be helpful in targeting postoperative patients who fall below expected norms or in allowing clinical correlation with changes in surgical practice.

The trajectory of patient-reported outcomes and minimal clinically important differences in isolated and polytraumatic pelvis and acetabular fractures.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported minimal clinically important differences (MCID) provide a standard to compare clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to calculate the MCID of PROMIS Physical Function (PF), Pain Interference (PI), Anxiety (AX), and Depression (DEP) scores in patients with pelvis and/or acetabular fractures. METHODS: All patients with operatively treated pelvic and/or acetabular fractures were identified. Patients were categorized as either only pelvis and/or acetabular fractures (PA) or polytrauma (PT). PROMIS PF, PI, AX, and DEP scores were evaluated at 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month intervals. Distribution-based MCID and anchor-based MCID were calculated for the overall cohort, PA, and PT groups. RESULTS: The overall distribution-based MCIDs were PF (5.19), PI (3.97), AX (4.33), and DEP (4.41). The overall anchor-based MCIDs were PF (7.18), PI (8.03), AX (5.85), DEP (5.00). The percentage of patients achieving MCID for AX was 39.8-54% at 3 months and 32.7-56% at 12 months. The percentage of patients achieving MCID for DEP was 35.7-39.3% at 3 months and 32.1-35.7% at 12 months. The PT group had worse PROMIS PF scores than the PA group at all time points [post-operative, 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month scores, (28.3 (6.3) vs. 26.8 (6.8) P = 0.016), (38.1 (9.2) vs. 35.0 (8.7) P = 0.037), (42.8 (8.2) vs. 39 (9.6) P = 0.015), (46.2 (9.7) vs. 41.2 (9.7) P = 0.011)]. CONCLUSION: An overall MCID for PROMIS PF was 5.19-7.18, PROMIS PI 3.97-8.03, PROMIS AX of 4.33-5.85, and PROMIS DEP of 4.41-5.00. The PT group had worse PROMIS PF at all time points. The percentage of patients achieving MCID for AX and DEP plateaued at 3 months post-operatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Sex, racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in patients with metastatic bone disease.

BACKGROUND: We have analyzed sex, race/ethnicity or socioeconomic disparities in the incidence of metastatic bone disease (MBD). METHODS: Patients with the diagnosis of MBD at presentation for five most common primary anatomical sites was extracted from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Census tract-level dataset. Mean incidence of MBD for different sex, racial/ethnic and socioeconomic groups were compared. RESULTS: The five most common anatomical sites with MBD at presentation include "lung: (n = 59 739), "prostate" (n = 19 732), "breast" (n = 16 244), "renal" (n = 7718) and "colon" (n = 3068). There was an increase in incidence of MBD among cancers originating from prostate (annual percentage change [APC] 4.94), renal (APC 2.55), and colon (APC 3.21) (p < 0.05 for all). Non-Hispanic Blacks had higher incidence of MBD for prostate and breast primary sites (p < 0.001). Non-Hispanic American Indian Alaskan Native had higher incidence of MBD for cancers originating from renal (p < 0.001) and colon (p = 0.049). A higher incidence of MBD was seen in lower socioeconomic status (SES) groups for the selected sites (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that there are multiple sex-related, racial/ethnic and SES disparities in the incidence of MBD from the 5 most common primary sites. Higher incidence seen among lower SES suggests delay in diagnosis and limited access to screening modalities.

Clinicians' perspectives on the integration of electronic patient-reported outcomes into dermatology clinics: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Skin conditions can have profound negative symptomatic and psychological effects. Failure to address these effects can lead to poor treatment adherence and/or patient dissatisfaction. Despite patient-reported outcome (PRO) use being highly recommended, real-world adoption has been slow. OBJECTIVES: To assess clinicians' perceived facilitators and barriers to using PROs in daily practice. METHODS: We conducted in-person semi-structured interviews with 19 clinicians and thematic analysis of transcripts. RESULTS: Three main themes emerged: (1) clinicians' attitudes about the value of Skindex-16 in daily practice, (2) patient attitudes influencing clinicians' use of Skindex-16, and (3) clinicians' perceptions of their ability to use PROs successfully for clinical care. Clinicians recognized benefits to using Skindex-16, such as revealing patients' hidden concerns and highlighting discrepancies with the clinician's severity assessments. Conversely, clinicians also identified limitations, such as time constraints and lack of relevance for some skin conditions. Patient complaints about PRO relevance have influenced clinicians' use of Skindex-16 negatively. Finally, some clinicians recognized the need for more training in score interpretation and implementation strategies for optimal clinical flow. CONCLUSIONS: While most clinicians believed PROs like Skindex-16 can be useful for patient care, barriers need to be addressed to make PROs more practical for routine clinical care.

Transforming challenges into opportunities: conducting health preference research during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

The disruptions to health research during the COVID-19 pandemic are being recognized globally, and there is a growing need for understanding the pandemic's impact on the health and health preferences of patients, caregivers, and the general public. Ongoing and planned health preference research (HPR) has been affected due to problems associated with recruitment, data collection, and data interpretation. While there are no "one size fits all" solutions, this commentary summarizes the key challenges in HPR within the context of the pandemic and offers pragmatic solutions and directions for future research. We recommend recruitment of a diverse, typically under-represented population in HPR using online, quota-based crowdsourcing platforms, and community partnerships. We foresee emerging evidence on remote, and telephone-based HPR modes of administration, with further studies on the shifts in preferences related to health and healthcare services as a result of the pandemic. We believe that the recalibration of HPR, due to what one would hope is an impermanent change, will permanently change how we conduct HPR in the future.

How Do PROMIS Scores Correspond to Common Physical Abilities?

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Report Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is increasingly used as a general-purpose tool for measuring orthopaedic surgery outcomes. This set of questionnaires is efficient, precise, and correlates well with specialty-specific measures, but impactful implementation of patient-specific data, especially at the point of care, remains a challenge. Although clinicians may have substantial experience with established patient-reported outcome measures in their fields, PROMIS is relatively new, and the real-life meaning of PROMIS numerical summary scores may be unknown to many orthopaedic surgeons. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We aimed to (1) identify a small subset of important items in the PROMIS Physical Function (PF) item bank that are answered by many patients with orthopaedic conditions and (2) graphically display characteristic responses to these items across the physical function spectrum in order to translate PROMIS numerical scores into physical ability levels using clinically relevant, familiar terms. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, 97,852 PROMIS PF assessments completed by 37,517 patients with orthopaedic conditions presenting to a tertiary-care academic institution were pooled and descriptively analyzed. Between 2017 and 2020, we evaluated 75,354 patients for outpatient orthopaedic care. Of these, 67% (50,578) were eligible for inclusion because they completed a PROMIS version 2.0 physical function assessment; 17% (12,720) were excluded because they lacked information in the database on individual item responses, and another < 1% (341) were excluded because the assessment standard error was greater than 0.32, leaving 50% of the patients (37,517) for analysis. The PROMIS PF is scored on a 0-point to 100-point scale, with a population mean of 50 and SD of 10. Anchor-based minimum clinically important differences have been found to be 8 to 10 points in a foot and ankle population, 7 to 8 points in a spine population, and approximately 4 points in a hand surgery population. The most efficient and precise means of administering the PROMIS PF is as a computerized adaptive test (CAT), whereby an algorithm intelligently tailors each follow-up question based on responses to previous questions, requiring only a few targeted questions to generate an accurate result. In this study, the mean PROMIS PF score was 41 ± 9. The questions most frequently used by the PROMIS CAT software were identified (defined in this study as any question administered to > 0.1% of the cohort). To understand the ability levels of patients based on their individual scores, patients were grouped into score categories: < 18, 20 ± 2, 25 ± 2, 30 ± 2, 35 ± 2, 40 ± 2, 45 ± 2, 50 ± 2, 55 ± 2, 60 ± 2, and > 62. For each score category, the relative frequency of each possible response (ranging from "cannot do" to "without any difficulty") was determined for each question. The distribution of responses given by each score group for each question was graphically displayed to generate an intuitive map linking PROMIS scores to patient ability levels (with ability levels represented by how patients responded to the PROMIS items). RESULTS: Twenty-eight items from the 165-question item bank were used frequently (that is, administered to more than 0.1% of the cohort) by the PROMIS CAT software. The top four items constituted 63% of all items. These top four items asked about the patient's ability to perform 2 hours of physical labor, yard work, household chores, and walking more than 1 mile. Graphical displays of responses to the top 28 and top four items revealed how PROMIS scores correspond to patient ability levels. Patients with a score of 40 most frequently responded that they experienced "some difficulty" with physical labor, yard work, household chores, and walking more than 1 mile, compared with "little" or "no" difficulty for patients with a score of 50 and "cannot do" for patients with a score of 30. CONCLUSION: We provided a visual key linking PROMIS numerical scores to physical ability levels using clinically relevant, familiar terms. Future studies might investigate whether using similar graphical displays as a patient education tool enhances patient-provider communication and improves the patient experience. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The visual explanation of PROMIS scores provided by this study may help new users of the PROMIS understand the instrument, feel empowered to incorporate it into their practices, and use it as a tool for counseling patients about their scores.

The Lumbar Stenosis Prognostic Subgroups for Personalizing Care and Treatment (PROSPECTS) study: protocol for an inception cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common degenerative condition that contributes to back and back-related leg pain in older adults. Most patients with symptomatic LSS initially receive non-operative care before surgical consultation. However, there is a scarcity of data regarding prognosis for patients seeking non-surgical care. The overall goal of this project is to develop and evaluate a clinically useful model to predict long-term physical function of patients initiating non-surgical care for symptomatic LSS. METHODS: This is a protocol for an inception cohort study of adults 50 years and older who are initiating non-surgical care for symptomatic LSS in a secondary care setting. We plan to recruit up to 625 patients at two study sites. We exclude patients with prior lumbar spine surgeries or those who are planning on lumbar spine surgery. We also exclude patients with serious medical conditions that have back pain as a symptom or limit walking. We are using weekly, automated data pulls from the electronic health records to identify potential participants. We then contact patients by email and telephone within 21 days of a new visit to determine eligibility, obtain consent, and enroll participants. We collect data using telephone interviews, web-based surveys, and queries of electronic health records. Participants are followed for 12 months, with surveys completed at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. The primary outcome measure is the 8-item PROMIS Physical Function (PF) Short Form. We will identify distinct phenotypes using PROMIS PF scores at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months using group-based trajectory modeling. We will develop and evaluate the performance of a multivariable prognostic model to predict 12-month physical function using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator and will compare performance to other machine learning methods. Internal validation will be conducted using k-folds cross-validation. DISCUSSION: This study will be one of the largest cohorts of individuals with symptomatic LSS initiating new episodes of non-surgical care. The successful completion of this project will produce a cross-validated prognostic model for LSS that can be used to tailor treatment approaches for patient care and clinical trials.

Establishing the Patient Acceptable Symptom State in a Nonshoulder Hand and Upper Extremity Population for the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Tests.

PURPOSE: It is unclear what score thresholds on patient-reported outcomes instruments reflect an acceptable level of upper extremity (UE) function from the perspective of patients undergoing hand surgery. The purpose of this study was to calculate the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) UE Computer Adaptive Test (CAT), version 2.0, in a population who underwent hand surgery. METHODS: Adult patients who underwent hand surgery between February 2019 and December 2019 at a single academic tertiary institution were identified. QuickDASH and PROMIS UE CAT version 2.0 scores were collected 1 year after surgery, as were separate symptom- and function-specific anchor questions that queried the acceptability of patients' current state. Threshold values predictive of a patient reporting an acceptable symptom state (PASS[+]) were calculated for both instruments using the 75th percentile score for patients in the PASS(+) group and the Youden Index as determined by receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: A total of 222 patients were included. QuickDASH and PROMIS UE CAT scores differed significantly between the PASS(+) and PASS(-) groups. The 75th percentile method yielded PASS values of <16 for the QuickDASH and >43 for the PROMIS UE CAT for both anchor questions. The ROC analysis yielded PASS estimates of <15.9 to <20.5 for the QuickDASH and >38.1 to >46.2 for the PROMIS UE CAT, with ranges calculated from differing threshold values for each of the 2 anchor questions. The ROC-based estimates demonstrated high levels of model discrimination (area under the curve ≥ 0.80). CONCLUSIONS: We propose PASS estimates obtained using the 75th percentile and ROC methods. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Specifically, PASS values in the range of 15.9-20.5 for the QuickDASH and 38.1-46.2 for the PROMIS UE CAT version 2.0 should be used when interpreting outcomes at a population level.

Decision-making in Orthopaedic Oncology: Does Cognitive Bias Affect a Virtual Patient's Choice Between Limb Salvage and Amputation?

BACKGROUND: The local treatment of extremity sarcomas usually is predicated on a decision between limb salvage and amputation. The manner in which surgical options are presented in the context of shared decision-making may influence this decision. In a population of "simulated" patients-survey respondents presented with a mock clinical vignette and then asked to choose between treatments-we assessed cognitive bias by deliberate alteration of the subjective presentation of the same objective information. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Will the manner in which information is presented to a simulated patient, in the setting of treatment for a bone sarcoma, bias their decision regarding pursuing amputation versus limb salvage? (2) At the time of decision-making, will a simulated patient's personal background, demographics, or mood affect their ultimate decision? METHODS: Survey respondents (Amazon MTurk platform) were presented with mock clinical vignettes simulating a sarcoma diagnosis and were asked to choose between amputation and limb salvage. Specific iterations were designed to assess several described types of cognitive bias. These scenarios were distributed, using anonymous online surveys, to potential participants aged 18 years or older. Recruitment was geographically restricted to individuals in the United States. Overall, 404 respondents completed the survey. The average age of respondents was 33 years (SD 1.2 years), 60% were male and 40% were female. In all, 12% of respondents worked in healthcare. Each respondent also completed questions regarding his or her demographics and his or her current mood. Associations between the type of bias presented and the respondent's choice of limb salvage versus amputation were examined. Independent sample t-tests were used to compare means. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: When amputation was presented as an option to mitigate functional loss (framing bias), more patients chose it than when limb salvage was presented as means for increased functional gains (23% [23 of 100] versus 10% [12 of 118], odds ratio [OR], 2.26; p = 0.010). Older simulated patients were more likely to choose limb salvage when exposed to framing bias versus younger patients (mean age 33 years versus 30 years, p = 0.02). Respondents who were employed in healthcare more commonly chose amputation versus limb salvage when exposed to framing bias (24% [eight of 35] versus 9% [17 of 183]; OR, 2.46; p = 0.02). Those who chose amputation were more likely to score higher on scales that measured depression or negative affect. CONCLUSIONS: Shared decision-making in orthopaedic oncology represents a unique circumstance in which several variables may influence a patient's decision between limb salvage and amputation. Invoking cognitive bias in simulated patients appeared to affect treatment decisions. We cannot be sure that these findings translate to the experience of actual sarcoma patients; however, we can conclude that important treatment decisions may be affected by cognitive bias and that patient characteristics (in this study, age, healthcare profession, and mood) may be associated with an individual's susceptibility to cognitive bias. We hope these observations will assist providers in the thoughtful delivery of highly charged information to patients facing difficult decisions, and promote further study of this important concept. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, economic and decision analyses.

Measuring Value in Spine Care Using the PROMIS-Preference Scoring System.

BACKGROUND: A transition to value-based care requires a thorough understanding of the costs and impacts of various interventions on patients' overall health utility. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) has gained popularity and is frequently used to assess physical, mental, and social health domains in clinical and research settings. To assess health utility, the PROMIS-Preference (PROPr) score, a societal preference-based measure, has been proposed to produce a single estimate of health utility. We determined the psychometric properties (validity and responsiveness) of the PROPr score as a health state utility measure in patients undergoing spine surgery. We hypothesized that PROPr score would be lower in the presence of comorbid conditions and lower socioeconomic status and in those with more severe pain-related disability and would be responsive to changes in health status following spine surgery. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, 904 adults presented for cervical (n = 359) and/or lumbar (n = 622) conditions, and 624 underwent surgery, from August 2019 through January 2022. To assess concurrent validity, we correlated the PROPr score with Neck Disability Index (NDI)/Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) values. To assess known-groups validity, we regressed the PROPr score on participant age, sex, pain-related disability, and social determinants of health. To assess responsiveness, we used an anchor-based approach, evaluating change from preoperatively to 6 and 12 months postoperatively anchored by the Patient Global Impression of Change. A p level of <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The median overall preoperative PROPr score was 0.20 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.10 to 0.32; range, -0.02 to 0.95). The PROPr score was associated with higher educational attainment (p = 0.01), higher household income (p < 0.001), and a greater number of comorbid conditions (p = 0.04). The median PROPr score decreased (worse health utility) with greater disability (NDI, 0.44 [none] to 0.09 [severe/complete], p < 0.001; ODI, 0.57 [none] to 0.08 [severe/complete], p < 0.001). The change in the median PROPr score differed in participants who rated their postoperative health as improved (0.17) compared with little or no change (0.04; p < 0.001) or worse (-0.06; p = 0.025) at 6 months and in those who rated their health as improved (0.15) compared with little or no change (0.02; p < 0.001) or worse (-0.05; p = 0.043) at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The PROPr score is a valid and responsive preference-based assessment of health utility for patients undergoing spine surgery. It can be calculated from PROMIS outcome data. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Crosswalk between the PROMIS physical function CAT and PROMIS upper extremity CAT v1.2 in a hand surgery population.

BACKGROUND: There is no gold standard patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in hand surgery. As a result, a diverse array of PROM instruments have been utilized across centers over time. Lack of score interchangeability limits the ability to compare or conglomerate scores when new instruments are introduced. Our aim was to develop a linkage for the PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 and PROMIS PF CAT scores and develop crosswalk tables for interconversion between these PROMs. METHODS: Retrospective review was conducted to identify adult (≥ 18y) patients seen by orthopaedic hand surgeons at a single academic tertiary care hospital who had completed PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 and PROMIS PF CAT score at the same visit. For those with multiple visits, only one randomly selected visit was included in the analyses. Pearson's correlation was calculated to determine the linear relationship between the scores. Linkage from PF to UE was performed utilizing several commonly utilized equating models (identity, mean, linear, equipercentile and circle-arc methods). The performance of the models was assessed using intraclass correlation (ICC) between observed PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 and estimated PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 scores generated using the model as well as Root Mean Square Error (RMSE). The model chosen as the 'best' was further assessed for population invariance using root expected mean squared difference (REMSD) where < 0.08 were considered good. RESULTS: Of 10,081 included patients, mean age was 48.3 (SD = 17.0), and 54% were female (5,477/10,081). Mean UE CAT v1.2 and PF CAT scores were 37 (SD = 9.8) and 46 (SD = 10.0), respectively. There was a strong correlation between the scores (Pearson correlation r = 0.70). All methods performed acceptably (ICC ≥ 0.66 and RMSE < = 7.52 for all). The equipercentile method had the highest ICC (ICC = 0.70 (95% CI 0.69-0.71)) while the mean and circle arc methods had the lowest RMSE. The circle arc method is the most reliable with the smallest standard error and has satisfactory population invariance across age group (REMSD 0.065) and sex (REMSD 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: Crosswalk tables to be used for bidirectional conversion between scores were created. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

The MCID of the PROMIS physical function instrument for operatively treated tibial plateau fractures.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in patient reported outcome measurement are important in improving patient care. The purpose of this study was to determine the MCID of Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) domain for patients who underwent operative fixation of a tibial plateau fracture. METHODS: All patients with tibial plateau fractures that underwent operative fixation at a single level 1 trauma center were identified by Current Procedural Terminology codes. Patients without PROMIS PF scores or an anchor question at two-time points postoperatively were excluded. Anchor-based and distribution-based MCIDs were calculated. RESULTS: The MCID for PROMIS PF scores was 4.85 in the distribution-based method and 3.93 (SD 14.01) in the anchor-based method. There was significantly more improvement in the score from the first postoperative score (<7 weeks) to the second postoperative time (<78 weeks) in the improvement group 10.95 (SD 9.95) compared to the no improvement group 7.02 (SD 9.87) in the anchor-based method (P < 0.001). The percentage of patients achieving MCID at 7 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year were 37-42 %, 57-62 %, 80-84 %, and 95-87 %, respectively. DISCUSSION: This study identified MCID values for PROMIS PF scores in the tibial plateau fracture population. Both MCID scores were similar, resulting in a reliable value for future studies and clinical decision-making. An MCID of 3.93 to 4.85 can be used as a clinical and investigative standard for patients with operative tibial plateau fractures.

Supportive care interventions in metastatic bone disease: scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with secondary metastatic involvement of the musculoskeletal system due to primary cancers are a rapidly growing population with significant risks for health-related end-of-life morbidities. In particular, bone metastases or metastatic bone disease (MBD) imparts significant adversity to remaining quality of life. No rigorous review of clinical trials on the use of supportive care interventions for MBD has been conducted. The objective of this review was to examine the characteristics of supportive care interventions for MBD and critically appraise study designs, key findings, and quality of evidence of the research. METHODS: We searched for published clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses in PubMED, CINAHL and Google Scholar for articles published between September 2017 and September 2022. Some examples of Medical Subject Headings terms were: 'secondary neoplasm', 'metastatic bone disease', 'palliative care' and 'supportive care intervention'. Quality of published evidence was evaluated based on treatment types and study design. RESULTS: After reviewing 572 publications, 13 articles were included in the final review and evaluation including seven clinical trials, two trial protocols and four systematic reviews. Feasible interventions included enhanced palliative care consultation, palliative radiotherapy and alternative medicines. Interventions addressed primary endpoints of fatigue (N=4, 31%), pain (N=3, 23%) or cancer-related symptoms (N=3, 23%) with patient-reported outcome instruments. No interventions reported on fracture complications or endpoints, specifically. The quality of most studies was moderate to strong. CONCLUSION: Supportive care interventions for MBD are feasible and the impact is measurable via patient-reported outcome measures. While the evidence for interventions was moderate to strong, there are very few specific controlled trials for skeletal-related events and impacts of social determinants of health. Further clinical trials are needed to define supportive care interventions for MBD that demonstrate reduced risk of fracture and that mitigate the reduced quality of life when negative musculoskeletal outcomes arise.

Establishing the Patient Acceptable Symptom State Thresholds for Patient-Reported Outcomes after Operatively Treated Tibial Plateau Fractures.

OBJECTIVES: Define patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds and factors affecting PASS thresholds for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) following operatively treated tibial plateau fractures. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Single Level I academic trauma center. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: All patients (n = 159) who underwent fixation of a tibial plateau fracture from 2016 to 2021 and completed patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at minimum 1-year follow-up were enrolled for the study. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: PASS thresholds for global outcome (PASS-Global), pain (PASS-Pain), and function (PASS-Function) were determined using anchor-based questions such as "How satisfied are you today with your injured lower extremity?" with answer choices of very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, unsatisfied, and very unsatisfied. PASS thresholds for each PROM were calculated using 3 methods: (1) 80% specificity, (2) 75th percentile, and (3) Youden Index. RESULTS: Sixty percent of patients were satisfied with their global outcome and 53% with function. Using 80% specificity, 75th percentile, and Youden Index, PASS-Global thresholds were 48.5, 44.5, and 47.9 for PROMIS-PF and 56.3, 56.2, and 56.3 for KOOS-QOL, respectively. PASS-Pain threshold for KOOS-Pain was 84.4, 80.6, and 80.6, respectively. PASS-Function thresholds were 48.9, 46.8, and 48 for PROMIS-PF and 94.1, 90.2, and 86.8 for KOOS-ADL, respectively. Younger patients and those with bicondylar fractures or infections were associated with significantly lower PASS-Pain thresholds. Schatzker II fractures, lateral column involvement, or isolated lateral approach resulted in significantly higher PASS-Global and PASS-Function thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: This study defines global, functional, and pain PASS thresholds for tibial plateau fractures. Patients with bicondylar fractures, infections, and medial column involvement were more often unsatisfied. These thresholds are valuable references to identify patients who have attained satisfactory outcomes and to counsel patients with risk factors for unsatisfactory outcomes following tibial plateau fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Minimal Clinically Important Differences of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function in Patients With Tibial Shaft Fracture.

OBJECTIVE: To calculate the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) of patient-reported outcomes measurement information system physical function (PROMIS PF) scores for patients with operatively treated tibial shaft fractures. DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Study. SETTING: A Level 1 trauma center. PATIENTS: All operatively treated tibial shaft fractures identified by Current Procedural Terminology codes. INTERVENTION: Enrolled patients treated acutely with operative fixation of their tibia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: MCIDs were calculated by distribution-based and anchor-based methods, calculated from PROMIS PF scores completed at least at two-time points postoperatively. MCIDs were calculated at different time points including overall, 7-12 weeks, 3-6 months, and 6-24 months. MCIDs were calculated for different subgroups including open fractures, closed fractures, any complications, and no complications. RESULTS: MCID for PROMIS PF scores was 5.7 in the distribution-based method and 7.84 (SD 18.65) in the anchor-based method. At 6-24 postoperatively, the months the distribution-based MCID was 5.95 from a postoperative baseline 27.83 (8.74) to 42.85 (9.61), P < 0.001. At 6-24 months, the anchor-based MCID was 10.62 with a score difference between the improvement group of 16.03 (10.73) and the no improvement group of 5.41 (15.75), P < 0.001. Patients with open fractures (distribution-based 6.22 and anchor-based 8.05) and any complications (distribution-based 5.71 and anchor-based 9.29) had similar or higher MCIDs depending on the methodology used than the overall cohort MCIDs. CONCLUSION: This study identified distribution-based MCID of 5.7 and anchor-based MCID of 7.84 calculated from PROMIS PF scores in operative tibial shaft fractures. Distribution-based methods yielded smaller MCIDs than anchor-based methods. These MCID scores provide a standard to compare clinical and investigational outcomes.

Early postoperative step count and walking time have greater impact on lower limb fracture outcomes than load-bearing metrics.

INTRODUCTION: Weight-bearing protocols for rehabilitation of lower extremity fractures are the gold standard despite not being data-driven. Additionally, current protocols are focused on the amount of weight placed on the limb, negating other patient rehabilitation behaviors that may contribute to outcomes. Wearable sensors can provide insight into multiple aspects of patient behavior through longitudinal monitoring. This study aimed to understand the relationship between patient behavior and rehabilitation outcomes using wearable sensors to identify the metrics of patient rehabilitation behavior that have a positive effect on 1-year rehabilitation outcomes. METHODS: Prospective observational study on 42 closed ankle and tibial fracture patients. Rehabilitation behavior was monitored continuously between 2 and 6 weeks post-operative using a gait monitoring insole. Metrics describing patient rehabilitation behavior, including step count, walking time, cadence, and body weight per step, were compared between patient groups of excellent and average rehabilitation outcomes, as defined by the 1-year Patient Reported Outcome Measure Physical Function t-score (PROMIS PF). A Fuzzy Inference System (FIS) was used to rank metrics based on their impact on patient outcomes. Additionally, correlation coefficients were calculated between patient characteristics and principal components of the behavior metrics. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients had complete insole data sets, and 17 of which had 1-year PROMIS PF scores (33.7 ± 14.5 years of age, 13 female, 9 in Excellent group, 8 in Average group). Step count had the highest impact ranking (0.817), while body weight per step had a low impact ranking (0.309). No significant correlation coefficients were found between patient or injury characteristics and behavior principal components. General patient rehabilitation behavior was described through cadence (mean of 71.0 steps/min) and step count (logarithmic distribution with only ten days exceeding 5,000 steps/day). CONCLUSION: Step count and walking time had a greater impact on 1-year outcomes than body weight per step or cadence. The results suggest that increased activity may improve 1-year outcomes for patients with lower extremity fractures. The use of more accessible devices, such as smart watches with step counters combined with patient reported outcome measures may provide more valuable insights into patient rehabilitation behaviors and their effect on rehabilitation outcomes.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Their Clinical Applications in Dermatology.

With more disease- and symptom-specific measures available and research pointing to increased usefulness, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can be routinely used in clinical care. PROMs increase efficiency in healthcare, improve the clinician-patient relationship, and increase patient satisfaction with their care. PROMs can be administered before, during, and after clinic visits using paper-and-pencil, mobile phones, tablets, and computers. Herein, we combine available literature with expert views to discuss overcoming barriers and helping dermatologists incorporate PROMs into routine patient-centered care. We believe dermatology patients will benefit from broader PROM implementation and routine clinical use. However, a few major barriers exist: (1) cost to implement the technology, (2) selecting the right PROMs for each disease, and (3) helping both patients and clinicians understand how PROMs add to and complement their current clinical experience. We provide recommendations to assist dermatologists when considering whether to implement PROMs in their practices.

Two-incision minimally invasive vs standard total hip arthroplasty: comparison of component position and hospital costs.

Forty-nine patients undergoing 2-incision total hip arthroplasty were matched by age, gender, body mass index, and comorbidity to patients undergoing a standard lateral Hardinge approach. Hospital costs and charges were compared along with length of stay, component position, and complication rates. Component position and complication rates were identical for the 2 groups. However, hospital costs and charges were significantly lower for the 2-incision group, as was length of stay.