Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39432233›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2024

Assessing the measurement properties of PROMIS Computer Adaptive Tests, short forms and legacy patient reported outcome measures in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty.

C Braaksma, N Wolterbeek, M R Veen, R W Poolman, Y Pronk, A D Klaassen, R W J G Ostelo, C B Terwee

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Measurement properties of the USER-Participation Restriction subscale and PROMISQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors.

C BraaksmaSt. Antonius Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands. christelbraaksma@hotmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-3471-8964
N WolterbeekSt. Antonius Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
M R VeenSt. Antonius Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
R W PoolmanOLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Y PronkResearch Department, Kliniek ViaSana, Mill, The Netherlands.
A D KlaassenOLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
R W J G OsteloDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
C B TerweeDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

LROI LROI
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe commonly used ('legacy') PROMs evaluating outcomes of total hip arthroplasty (THA), have several limitations regarding their measurement properties and interpretation of scores. One innovation in PROMs is the use of Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS METHODOLOGY: Patients in this multicenter study filled out a questionnaire twice, including Dutch-Flemish PROMIS v1.2 Physical Function (PROMIS-PF) and v1.1 Pain Interference (PROMIS-PI) CATs and short forms, PROMIS v1.0 Pain Intensity, and legacy PROMs (Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), HOOS-Physical function Shortform (HOOS-PS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), and two numeric rating scales measuring pain). The reliability, measurement precision (Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)), smallest detectable change (SDC), and burden of PROMIS instruments were presented head-to-head to legacy PROMs. Furthermore, construct validity was assessed.

results208 patients were included. All instruments had a sufficient test-retest reliability (range ICC: 0.83-0.96). The SEM of PROMIS CATs and short forms ranged from 1.8 to 2.2 T-score points, the SEM of legacy instruments 2.6-11.1. The SDC of PROMIS instruments ranged from 2.1 to 7.3 T-score points, the SDC of legacy instruments 7.2-30.9. The construct validity of PROMIS CAT and short forms were found sufficient, except for the PROMIS-PI short form. The burden of PROMIS CATs was smaller than PROMIS short forms (range 4.8-5.2 versus 8-20 items, respectively). The burden of legacy instruments measuring physical functioning ranged from 5 to 40 items.

conclusionsThe PROMIS-PF is less burdensome, with high measurement precision, and almost no minimal or maximal scores, and an equal reliability compared to legacy instruments measuring physical functioning in patients undergoing THA. The PROMIS Pain Intensity 1a is comparable to the legacy pain instruments in terms of burden, reliability and SDC. Measuring the construct Pain Interference may not have additional value in this population because of its high correlation with instruments measuring physical functioning. The SDC values presented in this study can be used for individual patient monitoring.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAgedDisability EvaluationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOsteoarthritis, HipPain MeasurementPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesComputer Adaptive TestingOutcome measuresPROMISPROMsTotal hip arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID39432233
PMCPMC11493881

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.