Background: This study was performed to determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) computer adaptive test (CAT) for patients with thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) arthritis. Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed data from 152 adults receiving surgical and nonsurgical care for unilateral thumb CMC arthritis at a single institution between January 2016 and January 2018. Patients completed PROMIS PF v1.2/2.0 CAT at each visit. At follow-up, patients also completed two 6-item anchor questions assessing the degree of perceived improvement. Statistical testing analyzed the ability of the clinical anchor to discriminate levels of improvement. An anchor-based MCID estimate was calculated as the mean PROMIS PF change score in the mild improvement group. The anchor-based MCID value was examined for the influence of patient age, initial and final PROMIS scores, and follow-up interval. A distribution-based MCID value was calculated incorporating the standard error of measurement and effect size. Results: The change in PROMIS PF scores was significantly different between encounters where patients reported no change, mild improvement, and much improvement. The anchor-based MCID estimate for PROMIS PF was 3.9 (95% confidence interval, 3.3-4.7). Individual MCID values were weakly correlated with the final absolute PROMIS PF score but did not correlate with patient age, time between visits, or the initial absolute PROMIS PF score. The distribution-based MCID value was 3.5 (95% confidence interval, 3.1-3.9). Conclusions: The estimated range of MCID values for PROMIS PF is 3.5 to 3.9 points in patients treated for thumb CMC arthritis.
PorterME.What is value in health care?N Engl J Med. 2010;363(26):2477-2481.
2.
CalfeeRPAdamsAA.Clinical research and patient-rated outcome measures in hand surgery. J Hand Surg Am. 2012;37(4):851-855.
3.
SmithMVCalfeeRPBaumgartenKM, et al. Upper extremity-specific measures of disability and outcomes in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(3):277-285.
4.
HsuJENackeEParkMJ, et al. The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire in intercollegiate athletes: validity limited by ceiling effect. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(3):349-354.
5.
TyserARBeckmannJFranklinJD, et al. Evaluation of the PROMIS physical function computer adaptive test in the upper extremity. J Hand Surg Am. 2014;39(10):2047.e4-2051.e4.
6.
DoringACNotaSPHagemanMG, et al. Measurement of upper extremity disability using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System. J Hand Surg Am. 2014;39(6):1160-1165.
7.
BrodkeDJSaltzmanCLBrodkeDS.PROMIS for orthopaedic outcomes measurement. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016;24(11):744-749.
8.
OverbeekCLNotaSPJayakumarP, et al. The PROMIS physical function correlates with the QuickDASH in patients with upper extremity illness. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(1):311-317.
9.
BeckmannJTHungMBounsangaJ, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the PROMIS Physical Function Computerized Adaptive Test in comparison to the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score and Simple Shoulder Test in patients with rotator cuff disease. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(12):1961-1967.
10.
JaeschkeRSingerJGuyattGH.Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10(4):407-415.
11.
KingMT.A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11(2):171-184.
12.
CocksKKingMTVelikovaG, et al. Evidence-based guidelines for determination of sample size and interpretation of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(1):89-96.
13.
SorensenAAHowardDTanWH, et al. Minimal clinically important differences of 3 patient-rated outcomes instruments. J Hand Surg Am. 2013;38(4):641-649.
14.
MalayS; for SUN Study Group, Chung KC. The minimal clinically important difference after simple decompression for ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. J Hand Surg Am. 2013;38(4):652-659.
15.
MintkenPEGlynnPClelandJA.Psychometric properties of the shortened disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDASH) and Numeric Pain Rating Scale in patients with shoulder pain. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(6):920-926.
16.
LondonDAStepanJGCalfeeRP.Determining the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire minimal clinically important difference by means of three methods. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133(3):616-625.
17.
ShauverMJChungKC.The minimal clinically important difference of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. J Hand Surg Am. 2009;34(3):509-514.
18.
TashjianRZHungMKeenerJD, et al. Determining the minimal clinically important difference for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) measuring pain after shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(1):144-148.
19.
TashjianRZDeloachJGreenA, et al. Minimal clinically important differences in ASES and simple shoulder test scores after nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(2):296-303.
20.
RevickiDHaysRDCellaD, et al. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102-109.
21.
AmtmannDKimJChungH, et al. Minimally important differences for Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System pain interference for individuals with back pain. J Pain Res. 2016;9:251-255.
JuniperEFGuyattGHWillanA, et al. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47(1):81-87.
24.
TubachFRavaudPBaronG, et al. Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64(1):29-33.
25.
YostKJEtonDTGarciaSF, et al. Minimally important differences were estimated for six Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Cancer scales in advanced-stage cancer patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(5):507-516.
26.
SandvallBOkoroaforUCGerullW, et al. Minimal clinically important difference for PROMIS physical function in patients with distal radius fractures. J Hand Surg Am. 2019;44(6):454-459.
27.
HoBHouckJRFlemisterAS, et al. Preoperative PROMIS scores predict postoperative success in foot and ankle patients. Foot Ankle Int. 2016;37(9):911-918.
28.
ChenREPapugaMONicandriGT, et al. Preoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores predict postoperative outcome in total shoulder arthroplasty patients. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019;28(3):547-554.
29.
GummessonCAtroshiIEkdahlC.The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) outcome questionnaire: longitudinal construct validity and measuring self-rated health change after surgery. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2003;4:11.
30.
BiberJOseDReeseJ, et al. Patient reported outcomes-experiences with implementation in a University Health Care setting. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2017;2:34.
31.
ShiQMacDermidJCSantaguidaPL, et al. Predictors of surgical outcomes following anterior transposition of ulnar nerve for cubital tunnel syndrome: a systematic review. J Hand Surg Am. 2011;36(12):1996-2001.
32.
MacadamSABezuhlyMLefaivreKA.Outcomes measures used to assess results after surgery for cubital tunnel syndrome: a systematic review of the literature. J Hand Surg Am. 2009;34(8):1482-1491.
