ReviewKnee surgery & related research2023
Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system instruments in knee arthroplasty patients: a systematic review of the literature.
Review in Knee surgery & related research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can a Total Knee System Providing 1 mm Increment of Polyethylene Insert Thickness Offer a Clinical Benefit?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Trial
- Clinical outcomes and patient-reported joint noise after total knee arthroplasty using saddle-shaped rotating-platform and bi-cruciate-stabilized implant-surgical systems: a propensity score-matched cohort study.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2026Article
- A Comparison of the Psychometric Properties of PROMIS Computer Adaptive Tests and Short Forms Vs Legacy Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Total Knee Arthroplasty Patients.Arthroplasty today · 2026Article
- Early Perioperative Outcomes of a Newly Designed Metaphyseal Tibial and Femoral Cone in Revision Knee Arthroplasty.Cureus · 2025Article
- Functional quadriceps endurance, dynamic balance, and patient-reported recovery after total knee arthroplasty: a cross-sectional analysis of functional capacity and perceived disability.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study is to provide a systematic review of the literature pertaining to Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) validation and utilization as an outcomes metric in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients. This is the first systematic review on PROMIS use in total knee arthroplasty patients.
methodsA systematic search of the Pubmed/MEDLINE and Embase databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Study characteristics, patient demographics, psychometric properties (Pearson and Spearman correlation) with legacy patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) instruments, floor and ceiling effects, responsiveness, and minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and PROMIS outcomes were recorded and analyzed.
resultsFifteen studies investigating PROMIS in 11,140 patients were included. The weighted-average Pearson correlation coefficient comparing PROMIS domains with legacy patient-reported outcome measurements in total knee arthroplasty patients was 0.62 [standard error (SE) = 0.06] and the weighted-average Spearman correlation comparing PROMIS domains with legacy patient-reported outcome measurements in total knee arthroplasty patients was 0.59 (SE = 0.06), demonstrating moderate-to-strong correlation and validity. There were no differences in weighted average floor [0.03% (SE = 3.1) versus 0% (SE = 0.1) versus 0.01% (SE = 1.1); p = 0.25] or ceiling effects [0.01% (SE = 0.7) versus 0.02% (SE = 1.4) versus 0.04% (SE = 3.5); p = 0.36] between PROMIS and legacy instruments. The weighted average for percentage of patients achieving MCID was 59.1% for global physical health (GPH), 26.0% for global mental health (GMH), 52.7% for physical function (PF), 67.2% for pain interference (PI), and 37.2% for depression.
conclusionNotably, PROMIS global physical health, physical function, and pain interference were found to be significantly responsive, with PROMIS pain interference most effectively capturing clinical improvement as evidenced by the achievement of MCID.
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.