ArticleJournal of shoulder and elbow surgery2021
Evaluating the performance of PROMIS and QuickDASH instruments in an intercollegiate Division 1 athlete population.
Article in Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inspiratory Strength and Diaphragm Thickness in Tennis Players with and Without Non-Specific Shoulder Pain.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of fluoroscopically guided transforaminal epidural steroid injections for cervical radiculopathy utilizing patient reported outcome measurement information system as an outcome measure.Interventional pain medicine · 2025Article
- The Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Practice: A National Survey of Hand Surgeons.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2025Article
- Linking QuickDASH and PROMIS Upper-Extremity Computer-Adaptive Test Scores in Hand Surgery: A Crosswalk Study.The Journal of hand surgery · 2024Article
- Establishing the Patient Acceptable Symptom State in a Nonshoulder Hand and Upper Extremity Population for the QuickDASH and PROMIS UE Computer Adaptive Tests.The Journal of hand surgery · 2024Article
- Establishing the Substantial Clinical Benefit in a Non-Shoulder Hand and Upper Extremity Population for the QuickDASH and PROMIS Upper Extremity and Physical Function Computer Adaptive Tests.The Journal of hand surgery · 2022Article
- Linking AM-PAC Mobility and Daily Activity to the PROMIS Physical Function Metric.Physical therapy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAthletes demonstrate high levels of physical function, leading to difficulties in patient-reported outcome scoring and interpretation. In particular, the ability of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments to adequately discriminate between high levels of upper extremity function-that is, the ceiling effect-is limited. This study evaluated performance characteristics of the shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) survey and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) metrics in a population of Division 1 intercollegiate athletes, with specific attention to ceiling effects.
methodsAt a single institution, Division I intercollegiate athletes cleared for full participation in the 2018-2019 season were eligible. The following PROs were collected prospectively via tablet computer: PROMIS upper extremity (UE) computer adaptive test (CAT), PROMIS physical function (PF) CAT, QuickDASH, and QuickDASH Sports/Performing Arts Module. Descriptive statistics, and ceiling and floor effects, were calculated. The proportion of athletes with maximal scores on each PRO were compared to normative values using the 1-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.
resultsA total of 268 participants were included; the mean age was 19.9 ± 1.5 years, 49% were female, and 61% were overhead athletes. Large ceiling effects were observed for the UE CAT (46%), QuickDASH (58%), and QuickDASH Sports Module (82%). The PF CAT demonstrated a relatively low ceiling effect of 6.7%. Athlete scores were all significantly better than published age-matched values from a normative population for all instruments, with the exception of no difference on the QuickDASH for males. DISCUSSION AND/OR
conclusionThe PROMIS UE CAT and QuickDash instruments are limited in their ability to assess and discriminate upper extremity function in highly functioning individuals such as Division I athletes. The PROMIS PF CAT, a measure of general physical function, did not suffer from a large ceiling effect.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.