Which Patient Reported Outcomes System Works Best?
Looking at multiple orthopedic domains, researchers undertook a multicenter study to determine whether the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is as effective as traditional patient reported outcomes (PROs). “Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System and Legacy Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in the Field of Orthopaedics: A Systematic Review,” appeared in the October 30, 2018 edition of the journal Arthroscopy.
Eric C. Makhni, M.D., M.B.A., attending surgeon in the Division of Sports Medicine at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, Michigan and co-author on the study, told OTW, “There has been significant recent interest in the new NIH [National Institutes of Health] patient reported outcome (PRO) system called PROMIS [Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System].”
“The advantage of PROMIS is that it allows for PRO collection across a number of health and musculoskeletal domains in a far more efficient manner than that of traditional ‘legacy’ PRO scores. The main advantage of PROMIS is the presence of computer adaptive test (CAT) forms, which are highly dynamic and efficient ways to measure patient health.”
“This is the first study to our knowledge to perform a systematic review of research that has utilized PROMIS in musculoskeletal health. We compared PROMIS scores with traditional PRO forms across a number of musculoskeletal domains. This provides some early evidence regarding the correlation between PROMIS forms and legacy PRO forms. Theoretically, if we can demonstrate a good correlation between the two types of PRO forms, then the argument can be made that PROMIS may be a far more efficient method for measuring patient reported outcomes without any loss of validity.”
“The main finding in our study is that PROMIS physical function forms showed strong correlation with legacy PRO scores across orthopedic domains (upper extremity, lower extremity, and spine). Moreover, our study confirmed that administration of PROMIS is more efficient than that of legacy scores (100 seconds versus 244 seconds required for completion, respectively). In other words, PROMIS is just as good as legacy PRO but significantly shorter and more efficient to administer.”
“In practical terms, the orthopedic community should consider incorporating PROMIS into their PRO collection algorithms. While PROMIS is new and therefore still a largely unknown entity to most researchers and practitioners, the case can be made that we should educate the orthopedic community about the benefits and utility of PROMIS.”
“Hopefully, this study will motivate orthopedic clinicians and researchers to read and learn about PROMIS and in particular begin to think about different ways that PROMIS may be useful from a clinical and research application. Widespread incorporation of such a useful clinical tool will no doubt assist in patient care and clinical research alike, allowing us to take the best care of our patients that is possible.”
