Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A High-Sensitivity International Knee Documentation Committee Survey Index From the PROMIS System: The Next-Generation Patient-Reported Outcome for a Knee Injury Population.
Tenan, Matthew S; Robins, Richard J; Sheean, Andrew J; Dekker, Travis J; Bailey, James R; Bharmal, Husain M; Bradley, Matthew W; Cameron, Kenneth L; Burns, Travis C; Freedman, Brett A; Galvin, Joseph W; Grenier, Eric S; Haley, Chad A; Hurvitz, Andrew P; LeClere, Lance E; Lee, Ian; Mauntel, Timothy; McDonald, Lucas S; Nesti, Leon J; Owens, Brett D; Posner, Matthew A; Potter, Benjamin K; Provencher, Matthew T; Rhon, Daniel I; Roach, Christopher J; Ryan, Paul M; Schmitz, Matthew R; Slabaugh, Mark A; Tucker, Christopher J; Volk, William R; Dickens, Jonathan F.
Afiliação
  • Tenan MS; Defense Healthcare Management Systems, Virginia, USA.
  • Robins RJ; Optimum Performance Analytics Associates, North Carolina, USA.
  • Sheean AJ; The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of the Army/Navy/Air Force, Department of Defense, or US government.
  • Dekker TJ; Investigation performed across the Military Health System.
  • Bailey JR; Department of Surgery, Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
  • Bharmal HM; The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of the Army/Navy/Air Force, Department of Defense, or US government.
  • Bradley MW; Investigation performed across the Military Health System.
  • Cameron KL; San Antonio Military Medical Center, Texas, USA.
  • Burns TC; The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of the Army/Navy/Air Force, Department of Defense, or US government.
  • Freedman BA; Investigation performed across the Military Health System.
  • Galvin JW; Eglin Air Force Base, Department of Orthopaedics, Eglin AFB, Florida, USA.
  • Grenier ES; The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of the Army/Navy/Air Force, Department of Defense, or US government.
  • Haley CA; Investigation performed across the Military Health System.
  • Hurvitz AP; The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of the Army/Navy/Air Force, Department of Defense, or US government.
  • LeClere LE; Investigation performed across the Military Health System.
  • Lee I; Naval Medical Center San Diego, California, USA.
  • Mauntel T; The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of the Army/Navy/Air Force, Department of Defense, or US government.
  • McDonald LS; Investigation performed across the Military Health System.
  • Nesti LJ; Brooke Army Medical Center, Texas, USA.
  • Owens BD; The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of the Army/Navy/Air Force, Department of Defense, or US government.
  • Posner MA; Investigation performed across the Military Health System.
  • Potter BK; Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Maryland, USA.
  • Provencher MT; The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of the Army/Navy/Air Force, Department of Defense, or US government.
  • Rhon DI; Investigation performed across the Military Health System.
  • Roach CJ; Keller Army Hospital, New York, USA.
  • Ryan PM; The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of the Army/Navy/Air Force, Department of Defense, or US government.
  • Schmitz MR; Investigation performed across the Military Health System.
  • Slabaugh MA; Ortho San Antonio, Texas, USA.
  • Tucker CJ; The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of the Army/Navy/Air Force, Department of Defense, or US government.
  • Volk WR; Investigation performed across the Military Health System.
  • Dickens JF; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Am J Sports Med ; 49(13): 3561-3568, 2021 11.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34612705
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measure progression and quality of care. While legacy PROs such as the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) survey are well-validated, a lengthy PRO creates a time burden on patients, decreasing adherence. In recent years, PROs such as the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function and Pain Interference surveys were developed as computer adaptive tests, reducing time to completion. Previous studies have examined correlation between legacy PROs and PROMIS; however, no studies have developed effective prediction models utilizing PROMIS to create an IKDC index. While the IKDC is the standard knee PRO, computer adaptive PROs offer numerous practical advantages. PURPOSE: To develop a nonlinear predictive model utilizing PROMIS Physical Function and Pain Interference to estimate IKDC survey scores and examine algorithm sensitivity and validity. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: The MOTION (Military Orthopaedics Tracking Injuries and Outcomes Network) database is a prospectively collected repository of PROs and intraoperative variables. Patients undergoing knee surgery completed the IKDC and PROMIS surveys at varying time points. Nonlinear multivariable predictive models using Gaussian and beta distributions were created to establish an IKDC index score, which was then validated using leave-one-out techniques and minimal clinically important difference analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1011 patients completed the IKDC and PROMIS Physical Function and Pain Interference, providing 1618 complete observations. The algorithms for the Gaussian and beta distribution were validated to predict the IKDC (Pearson = 0.84-0.86; R2 = 0.71-0.74; root mean square error = 9.3-10.0). CONCLUSION: The publicly available predictive models can approximate the IKDC score. The results can be used to compare PROMIS Physical Function and Pain Interference against historical IKDC scores by creating an IKDC index score. Serial use of the IKDC index allows for a lower minimal clinically important difference than the conventional IKDC. PROMIS can be substituted to reduce patient burden, increase completion rates, and produce orthopaedic-specific survey analogs.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Traumatismos do Joelho Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Traumatismos do Joelho Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos