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.

Evaluation of Preoperative Factors Affecting Midterm Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Ligament Reconstruction Tendon Interposition: A Prognostic Study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of preoperative patient-reported outcomes as predictors of functional improvement following ligament reconstruction tendon interposition. We hypothesized that high levels of preoperative pain interference (PI) and upper-extremity disability are associated with lower magnitudes of functional improvement ≥1 year after surgery on the shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) (primary outcome) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity (UE) Computer Adaptive Test (CAT) (UE CAT) v1.2 (secondary outcome). METHODS: Adult patients who underwent ligament reconstruction tendon interposition between February 2014 and April 2018 at an academic tertiary institution were considered for inclusion in this longitudinal cohort study. Patient-reported outcomes were collected at baseline and ≥1 year after surgery. Univariate and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with the magnitude of functional improvement on the QuickDASH and UE CAT. RESULTS: Among 93 included participants, the mean age was 61 ± 7 years, and 75 (81%) were women. At 2.5 ± 1.0 years after surgery, the QuickDASH and UE CAT improved by a mean of 24.5 ± 20.9 and 9.9 ± 10.7 points, respectively. In the primary multivariable model, a greater preoperative QuickDASH (indicative of lower function; coefficient, 0.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6 to 0.9) and lower preoperative Performance of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System PI CAT (eg, less pain interference; coefficient, -0.7; 95% CI, -1.2 to -0.2) were associated with greater QuickDASH improvement independent of potential confounders. In the secondary multivariable model, lower preoperative UE CAT (indicative of worse function; coefficient, -0.9; 95% CI, -1.1 to -0.7) and lower preoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System PI CAT (coefficient, -0.3; 95% CI, -0.6 to -0.1) were associated with greater UE CAT improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative patient-reported outcomes may be useful in understanding the degree of improvement that certain patient populations can expect from ligament reconstruction tendon interposition. Those with lower baseline (preoperative) upper-extremity function and PI are expected to derive the greatest functional improvement in the midterm. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic IV.

The Relationship Between Patient-Reported Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction With Ligament Reconstruction Tendon Interposition.

PURPOSE: Achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) on an outcomes instrument and reporting satisfaction with surgical outcomes are not equivalent. We hypothesized that improvement exceeding the QuickDASH and PROMIS UE CAT MCID is associated with a greater likelihood of reporting satisfaction with ligament reconstruction tendon interposition (LRTI) treatment. Our secondary hypothesis was that a subset of patients failing to meet MCID would still be satisfied. METHODS: Patients ≥1 year after LRTI at one academic tertiary institution were included. QuickDASH and UE CAT v1.2 scores were obtained before and after surgery. Postoperative satisfaction and levels of improvement in pain and function were also obtained. RESULTS: A total of 93 patients completed the QuickDASH, and of those, 90 also completed the UE CAT. At a mean of 2.6 ± 1.0 years after surgery, QuickDASH and UE CAT score improvement exceeded the previously published MCID estimates of 8.8 and 4.8. Although 90% (84/93) of the patients reported satisfaction, only 85% (72/93) and 72% (59/90) achieved MCID on the QuickDASH and UE CAT, respectively. Using the MCID estimate of 8.8, 96% (72/75) of the patients meeting the MCID were satisfied with their treatment. Those failing to achieve MCID reported significantly less physical function and pain improvement; however, most were satisfied nonetheless (68% [13/19] for QuickDASH, 77% [23/30] for UE CAT). CONCLUSIONS: Achieving published MCID thresholds on the QuickDASH and PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 was predictive of patients reporting general satisfaction with their LRTI outcome ≥1 year after surgery. Most patients failing to achieve MCID still reported satisfaction with their LRTI. Achieving MCID thresholds alone should not be used as a surrogate for patient satisfaction with their treatment. Patient satisfaction is a complicated construct that is potentially very different from that of high-quality care. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic IV.

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.

Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for the PROMIS Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test Version 2.0 in a Nonshoulder Hand and Upper Extremity Population.

PURPOSE: Our primary purpose was to calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity (UE) Computer Adaptive Test (CAT) version 2.0 (v2.0) for a nonshoulder hand and upper extremity population. Secondarily, we calculated the PROMIS Physical Function (PF) CAT v2.0 and the abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) MCID. METHODS: Adult patients treated by 1 of 5 fellowship-trained hand surgeons between March 2015 and September 2019 at an academic tertiary institution were identified. The PROMIS UE CAT v2.0, PROMIS PF CAT v2.0, and QuickDASH were collected via tablet computer. Inclusion required response to at least 1 of the instruments at both baseline and follow-up (6 ± 4 weeks), and a response to the anchor question: "Compared to your first evaluation at the University Orthopaedic Center, how would you describe your physical function level now?" An additional anchor question assessing treatment-related improvement was also asked. The MCID was calculated using an anchor-based approach using the mean change difference between groups reporting no change and slight change for both anchor questions, and with the 1/2 SD method. RESULTS: Of 2,106 participants, mean age was 48 ± 17 years, 53% were female, and 53% were recovering from surgery. Of these patients, 381 completed the PROMISE UE CAT v2.0, 497 completed the PROMIS PF CAT v2.0, and 2,018 completed the QuickDASH. The score change between baseline and follow-up was significantly different between anchor groups for both anchor-based MCID calculations. Anchor-based MCID values were 3.0 to 4.0 for the UE CAT, 2.1 to 3.6 for the PF CAT, and 10.3 for the QuickDASH. The MCID values per the 1/2 SD method were 4.1, 4.1, and 10.2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We propose MCID ranges of 3.0 to 4.1 for the PROMIS UE CAT v2.0, and 2.1 to 4.1 for the PROMIS PF CAT v2.0. The observed QuickDASH MCID values (10.2-10.3) are within the range of previously published values. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These MCID estimates will aid in interpreting clinical outcomes and in powering clinical studies.

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the PROMIS and QuickDASH Instruments in a Nonshoulder Hand and Upper Extremity Patient Population.

PURPOSE: The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is used in research and clinical settings as a benchmark to gauge improvement following treatment. The purpose of this study was to provide anchor-based MCID estimates for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and legacy instruments in a nonshoulder hand and upper extremity population. METHODS: Adult patients (≥18 years) seeking care at a tertiary academic outpatient hand surgery clinic completed patient-reported outcome measures on tablet computers between January 2015 and August 2017. Data were collected at baseline and at 6 ± 2 weeks of follow-up. The PROMIS Upper Extremity (UE), Physical Function (PF), and Pain Interference (PI) Computer Adaptive Test (CAT) instruments were administered, along with the shortened Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH). A mean change anchor-based method was used to estimate MCIDs by comparing scores between anchor groups reporting no change versus slightly improved in terms of function and pain. RESULTS: Scores for each instrument significantly improved over the study period. With significant differences in scores between groups reporting no change and slightly improved function, anchor-based MCID estimates were calculated as follows: 2.1 for the PROMIS UE CAT, 1.7 for the PROMIS PF CAT, and 6.8 for the QuickDASH. There was no significant difference in PROMIS PI CAT scores between anchor groups when queried for level of pain improvement, precluding estimation of an anchor-based MCID. CONCLUSIONS: We have provided anchor-based MCID estimates for the PROMIS UE CAT, PROMIS PF CAT, and the QuickDASH for a general nonshoulder hand and upper extremity population. These values may be useful in future research for informing power calculations and when interpreting whether the magnitude of change on these instruments is clinically significant at a population level. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study provides clinicians with a reference for values that may reflect clinically meaningful changes in scores for patient-reported outcome instruments commonly utilized in the current hand surgery literature.

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.