Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41853137›Full record

ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes2026

Duke Activity Status Index Versus PROMIS Computer Adaptive Testing-Physical Function for Preoperative Assessment.

Mark A Nyman, Adam K Jacob, John C O'Horo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Mark A NymanDivision of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Adam K JacobDepartment of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
John C O'HoroDivisions of Infectious Disease and Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To compare the performance of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system computer adaptive testing-physical function (PROMIS CAT-PF) to the Duke Activity Status Index (DASI) as a potential alternative physical function domain assessment to assist with preoperative risk assessment. Patients and Methods: Patients consisted of a retrospective convenience sample of all adults who had a DASI or PROMIS CAT-PF score obtained from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022, within 90 days prior to elective surgery. DASI and PROMIS CAT-PF obtained within one month before a stress test was used to assess the correlation between actual metabolic equivalents attained and the 2 patient-facing questionnaires. To assess the ability to predict adverse outcomes, we used a composite outcome of either death or myocardial injury within 30 days of the surgery. Results: In comparing DASI and PROMIS CAT-PF correlation to actual metabolic equivalents achieved on stress testing, the DASI Spearman's coefficient of 0.46 (95% CI, 0.32-0.58) was numerically better than the PROMIS CAT-PF Spearman's coefficient of 0.39 (95% CI, 0.21-0.52); however, the difference was not statistically significant. Using a composite outcome of either death or myocardial injury, DASI (area under the curve of 0.712) and PROMIS CAT-PF (area under the curve of 0.773) reported fair predictive utility. The 2 patient-reported physical function domain scores showed weak correlation (κ=0.509). Conclusion: PROMIS CAT-PF performs as well as DASI, demonstrating a small incremental benefit in predicting adverse postoperative outcomes, and could be an alternative physical function domain assessment used in the preoperative evaluation of patients.

Identifiers

PMID41853137
PMCPMC12993019

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.