Ziedas Alexander, Abed Varag, Bench Carter, Rahman Tahsin, Makhni Melvin C
Henry Ford Health System, MI, USA.
Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Spine J. 2022 Apr;22(4):646-659. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.10.009. Epub 2021 Oct 23.
Preliminary evidence has suggested favorable correlation between National Institutes of Health (NIH) Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) assessments and traditional ("legacy") patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in spine surgery. There has been a significant increase in PROMIS research with regards to spinal conditions.
The purpose of this systematic review is to provide an assessment of PROMIS Physical Function (PF) measures in this patient population.
STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Systematic review.
A 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 to identify published articles that referenced the various PROMIS PF measures. Two authors independently reviewed selected studies. The search returned 1,060 studies, 124 of which were selected for independent review by two authors. Of these, 37 were selected for inclusion. Mixed linear models were performed to assess for differences between legacy PROMs and PROMIS measures.
The combined sample size of all included studies yielded 10,296 total patients. Overall, PROMIS Physical Function (PF) measures demonstrated strong correlations with legacy PROMs when evaluating spine patients (weighted Pearson correlation, 0.589, standard error [SE]=0.023; weighted Spearman correlation, 0.702, SE=0.028). PROMIS questionnaires had significantly fewer questions than did legacy PROMs (4.2±0.30 vs. 9.53±0.82, p=.015). In spine studies, the PROMIS PF forms were completed in significantly less time than legacy PROMs (48.1±2.9 vs. 174.7±12.6 seconds, p<.001). The differences for the reliability measures and the floor and ceiling effects were not significant.
Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System PF forms compare favorably with legacy PROMs with regard to correlations, ease of use, and quality criteria in the field of spine surgery. PROMIS PF scores correlate strongly with commonly used legacy PROMs, particularly in spine patients. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System PF forms can be administered efficiently and to a broad patient population while remaining highly reliable.
初步证据表明，美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）患者报告结局测量信息系统（PROMIS）评估与脊柱手术中的传统（“旧有”）患者报告结局测量指标（PROMs）之间存在良好的相关性。关于脊柱疾病的PROMIS研究显著增加。
本系统评价的目的是评估该患者群体中PROMIS身体功能（PF）测量指标。
研究设计/设置：系统评价。
根据系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）指南，对PubMed/MEDLINE和Embase数据库进行系统检索，以确定引用各种PROMIS PF测量指标的已发表文章。两位作者独立审查选定的研究。检索共返回1060项研究，其中124项被两位作者选作独立审查。其中，37项被选入。采用混合线性模型评估旧有PROMs与PROMIS测量指标之间的差异。
所有纳入研究的合并样本量总计10296例患者。总体而言，在评估脊柱患者时，PROMIS身体功能（PF）测量指标与旧有PROMs显示出很强的相关性（加权Pearson相关系数为0.589，标准误[SE]=0.023；加权Spearman相关系数为0.702，SE=0.028）。PROMIS问卷的问题数量明显少于旧有PROMs（4.2±0.30对9.53±0.82，p=0.015）。在脊柱研究中，PROMIS PF表格的填写时间明显少于旧有PROMs（48.1±2.9对174.7±12.6秒，p<0.001）。可靠性测量指标以及地板效应和天花板效应的差异不显著。
在脊柱手术领域，患者报告结局测量信息系统PF表格在相关性、易用性和质量标准方面与旧有PROMs相比具有优势。PROMIS PF评分与常用的旧有PROMs密切相关，尤其是在脊柱患者中。患者报告结局测量信息系统PF表格可以高效地应用于广泛的患者群体，同时保持高度可靠性。
