Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32043056›Full record

ArticleJB & JS open access

Establishing "Normal" Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function and Pain Interference Scores: A True Reference Score According to Adults Free of Joint Pain and Disability.

Sreten Franovic, Caleb M Gulledge, Noah A Kuhlmann, Tyler H Williford, Chaoyang Chen, Eric C Makhni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JB & JS open access. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Long-term Physical and Mental Health Outcomes of Older Adults Following a Major Burn Injury: A Burn Model System Investigation.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sreten FranovicDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan.
Caleb M GulledgeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan.
Noah A KuhlmannDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan.
Tyler H WillifordDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan.
Chaoyang ChenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan.
Eric C MakhniDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerous recent studies have demonstrated the validity and efficiency of the National Institutes of Health Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) forms in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgical procedures. It is assumed that a score of 50 in each domain represents the health state of a "reference" population, but this threshold has not been definitively proven. In order to truly assess whether a given orthopaedic intervention is successful, the comparative scores of healthy individuals must be known for any given health domain measured. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine baseline scores for the PROMIS general physical function (PROMIS-PF), pain interference (PROMIS-PI), and upper-extremity physical function (PROMIS-UE) domains in physically healthy, asymptomatic adult individuals. We hypothesized that, in individuals <40 years old, the mean PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-UE scores would be >50 and PROMIS-PI scores would be <50. We further hypothesized that these scores would be impacted by participant age.

methodsThree PROMIS computer adaptive test (CAT) domains were administered (either in person or through email) to healthy adult volunteers. These domains included PROMIS-PF, PROMIS-UE, and PROMIS-PI. Individuals who reported joint pain or dysfunction were excluded.

resultsIn total, 294 healthy volunteers with a mean age of 33.2 years (range, 18 to 83 years) completed all 3 PROMIS CAT forms. The mean (and standard deviation) PROMIS-UE, PROMIS-PF, and PROMIS-PI scores were 55.9 ± 6.6, 59.7 ± 8.0, and 43.6 ± 7.6, respectively, for individuals <40 years old and 51.2 ± 8.2, 52.9 ± 7.6, and 49.0 ± 8.0, respectively, for individuals ≥40 years old. Age correlated significantly with PROMIS-UE and PROMIS-PF in the older cohort.

conclusionsFor individuals <40 years old, baseline PROMIS-PF scores were significantly higher than 50 and PROMIS-PI scores were significantly lower. This difference was less pronounced in individuals ≥40 years old. When treating young patients, clinicians should be cognizant of these healthy baseline scores. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In this study, reference range for asymptomatic musculoskeletal volunteers was determined across PROMIS CAT forms. These reference scores are important in treating and counseling patients with musculoskeletal conditions in order to determine relative impairment or functional capabilities.

Identifiers

PMID32043056
PMCPMC6959908

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.