ArticleArthroplasty today2026
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.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Traditionally used PROMs evaluating total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have large measurement error and limited measurement range. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) has theoretical possibilities to overcome these limitations. This study evaluates the psychometric properties of PROMIS vs legacy PROMs in TKA patients. Methods: 210 patients were included from 3 orthopaedic departments. Patients completed a questionnaire twice in a 2-week interval, including 2 PROMIS Computer Adaptive Tests (CATs), assessing Physical Function (PF) and Pain Interference (PI), 5 PROMIS short forms (SF) (PF-SF8b, PF-SF10a, PF-SF-20a, PI-SF8a, PI-1a) and 6 legacy PROMs (KOOS, KOOS-PS, WOMAC, OKS, 2 numeric rating scales). Reliability, measurement precision, smallest detectable change (SDC), construct validity, burden and extreme scores were investigated. Results: All PROMIS CATs, SFs, and legacy PROMs showed adequate test-retest reliability. PROMIS CATs and SFs showed sufficient construct validity. Regarding PF, the SDC varied between 2.8-6.1 for PROMIS and 7.3-19.9 for legacy PROMs. PROMIS CAT and SFs showed no extreme scores using 5-20 items, legacy PROMs showed 1.2%-3% extreme scores using 7-17 items. Concerning pain, the SDC varied between 2.8-6.1 for PROMIS and 22.5-35.4 for legacy PROMs. PROMIS showed 0%-9.5% extreme scores using 5-8 items and legacy PROMs 8.7%-19.1% using 1-9 items. Conclusions: PROMIS CAT and SFs seem more efficient assessing PF in TKA compared to legacy PROMs by offering reduced burden and measurement error, and minimizing extreme scores. PROMIS PI-8a seems most suitable in measuring pain without extreme scores. This study supports a shift from legacy PROMs toward PROMIS in TKA patients.
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.