Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Henry Ford Health Systems, Detroit, Michigan, U.S.A.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
Arthroscopy. 2018 Feb;34(2):605-614. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.07.030. Epub 2017 Oct 31.
To compare Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF) with legacy patient-reported outcome measures with regard to correlations, ease of use, and quality criteria for orthopaedic conditions.
A systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE database was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify published articles that referenced the various PROMIS PF measures. Three authors independently reviewed selected studies. The search returned 130 studies, 44 of which underwent review. Of these, 18 were selected for inclusion. A general linear model and paired t-tests were used to assess for differences between legacy patient-reported outcome measures and PROMIS.
The combined sample size of all articles yielded 3,047 total patients. Overall, PROMIS PF measures and legacy scores showed strong correlations (range: 0.59-0.83) when evaluating upper extremity, lower extremity, and spine patients. PROMIS questionnaires (6.04, standard error [SE] = 0.7) have significantly fewer questions than legacy forms (24.27, SE = 4.36). In lower extremity studies, the PROMIS PF (100.14 seconds, SE = 28.41) forms were completed in significantly less time (P = .03) than legacy forms (243.70 seconds, SE = 45.8). No significant difference was found between the reliabilities of the 2 types of measures.
PROMIS PF scores correlate strongly, particularly in lower extremity patients, with some of the most commonly used legacy measures in orthopaedics. PROMIS can be administered quicker and applied to a broader patient population while remaining highly reliable.
Level IV, systematic review of Level I-IV evidence.
比较患者报告的结局测量信息系统（PROMIS）的物理功能（PF）与传统的患者报告结局测量方法，评估其在相关性、易用性以及骨科疾病的质量标准方面的差异。
根据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目指南，对 PubMed/MEDLINE 数据库进行系统检索，以确定参考各种 PROMIS PF 测量方法的已发表文章。三位作者独立审查了选定的研究。检索返回了 130 项研究，其中 44 项进行了审查。其中，有 18 项被纳入研究。使用一般线性模型和配对 t 检验评估传统的患者报告结局测量方法和 PROMIS 之间的差异。
所有文章的综合样本量得出了 3047 名患者。总体而言，当评估上肢、下肢和脊柱患者时，PROMIS PF 测量方法和传统评分之间显示出较强的相关性（范围：0.59-0.83）。PROMIS 问卷（6.04，标准误差 [SE] = 0.7）的问题明显少于传统形式（24.27，SE = 4.36）。在下肢研究中，PROMIS PF（100.14 秒，SE = 28.41）的完成时间明显短于传统形式（243.70 秒，SE = 45.8）（P =.03）。两种测量方法的可靠性之间没有发现显著差异。
PROMIS PF 评分与骨科中一些最常用的传统测量方法具有很强的相关性，特别是在下肢患者中。PROMIS 可以更快地进行管理，应用于更广泛的患者群体，同时保持高度可靠。
IV 级，对 I-IV 级证据的系统评价。
