Responsiveness Comparison of the EQ-5D, PROMIS Global Health, and VR-12 Questionnaires in Knee Arthroscopy

Sameer R Oak, Gregory J Strnad, James Bena, Lutul D Farrow, Richard D Parker, Morgan H Jones, Kurt P Spindler, Sameer R Oak, Gregory J Strnad, James Bena, Lutul D Farrow, Richard D Parker, Morgan H Jones, Kurt P Spindler

Abstract

Background: The EuroQol 5 dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) 10 Global Health, and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) are generic patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires that assess a patient's general health. In choosing a PRO to track general health status, it is necessary to consider which measure will be the most responsive to change after treatment. To date, no studies exist comparing responsiveness among the EQ-5D, PROMIS 10 Global Health, and the Veterans Rand 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12).

Purpose: To determine which of the generic PROs are most responsive internally and externally in the setting of knee arthroscopy.

Study design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.

Methods: Fifty patients who underwent knee arthroscopy were surveyed preoperatively and a mean 3.6 months postoperatively, with 90% follow-up. PROs included the EQ-5D, EQ-5D visual analog scale, PROMIS 10 Global Health (PROMIS 10) physical and mental components, VR-12 physical and mental components, and the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)-pain subscale. Internal responsiveness was evaluated by performing paired t tests on the changes in measures and calculating 2 measures of effect size: Cohen d and standardized response mean (SRM). External responsiveness was evaluated by comparing Pearson correlation measures between the disease-specific reference KOOS-pain and generic PROs.

Results: For internal responsiveness, 3 PROs showed a statistically significant improvement in score after treatment (EQ-5D: +0.10 [95% CI, 0.06-0.15], VR-12 physical: +7.2 [95% CI, 4.0-10.4]), and PROMIS 10 physical: +4.4 [95% CI, 2.6-6.3]) and effect size statistics with moderate change (Cohen d and SRM, 0.5-0.8). Assessing external responsiveness, a high correlation with the disease-specific reference (KOOS-pain score) was found for EQ-5D (0.65), VR-12 physical (0.57), and PROMIS 10 physical (0.77). For both internal and external responsiveness, the EQ-5D, VR-12 physical, and PROMIS 10 physical showed significantly greater responsiveness compared with the other general PRO measures but no statistical differences among themselves.

Conclusion: There is no statistical difference in internal or external responsiveness to change among the EQ-5D, VR-12 physical, and PROMIS 10 physical instruments. In tracking longitudinal patient health, researchers and administrators have the flexibility to choose any of the general PROs among the EQ-5D, VR-12 physical, and PROMIS 10 physical. We recommend that any study tracking PROs in knee arthroscopy include 1 of these generic instruments.

Keywords: Knee; patient-reported outcomes; responsiveness.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declared that they have no conflicts of interest in the authorship and publication of this contribution.

References

    1. Ahmed S, Berzon RA, Revicki DA, et al. ; International Society for Quality of Life Research. The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within comparative effectiveness research: implications for clinical practice and health care policy. Med Care. 2012;50:1060–1070.
    1. Black N. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ. 2013;346:f167.
    1. Cella D, Riley W, Stone A, et al. ; PROMIS Cooperative Group. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005-2008. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:1179–1194.
    1. Collins NJ, Misra D, Felson DT, Crossley KM, Roos EM. Measures of knee function: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical Function Short Form (KOOS-PS), Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADL), Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Activity Rating Scale (ARS), and Tegner Activity Score (TAS). Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63(suppl 11):S208–S228.
    1. Davis S, Wailoo A. A review of the psychometric performance of the EQ-5D in people with urinary incontinence. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:20.
    1. Dawson J, Doll H, Fitzpatrick R, Jenkinson C, Carr AJ. The routine use of patient reported outcome measures in healthcare settings. BMJ. 2010;340:c186.
    1. Diedenhofen B, Musch J. cocor: a comprehensive solution for the statistical comparison of correlations. PloS One. 2015;10:e0121945.
    1. Dinan MA, Compton KL, Dhillon JK, et al. Use of patient-reported outcomes in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials. Med Care. 2011;49:415–419.
    1. Eurich DT, Johnson JA, Reid KJ, Spertus JA. Assessing responsiveness of generic and specific health related quality of life measures in heart failure. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:89.
    1. Fabricant PD, Robles A, Downey-Zayas T, et al. Development and validation of a pediatric sports activity rating scale: The Hospital for Special Surgery Pediatric Functional Activity Brief Scale (HSS Pedi-FABS). Am J Sports Med. 2013;41:2421–2429.
    1. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377–381.
    1. Harrison MJ, Davies LM, Bansback NJ, Ingram M, Anis AH, Symmons DP. The validity and responsiveness of generic utility measures in rheumatoid arthritis: a review. J Rheumatol. 2008;35:592–602.
    1. Hays RD, Bjorner JB, Revicki DA, Spritzer KL, Cella D. Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:873–880.
    1. Haywood KL, Garratt AM, Dziedzic K, Dawes PT. Generic measures of health-related quality of life in ankylosing spondylitis: reliability, validity and responsiveness. Rheumatology. 2002;41:1380–1387.
    1. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:459–468.
    1. Iglesias CP, Birks Y, Nelson EA, Scanlon E, Cullum NA. Quality of life of people with venous leg ulcers: a comparison of the discriminative and responsive characteristics of two generic and a disease specific instruments. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:1705–1718.
    1. Marx RG, Stump TJ, Jones EC, Wickiewicz TL, Warren RF. Development and evaluation of an activity rating scale for disorders of the knee. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29:213–218.
    1. Meng X, Rosenthal R, Rubin DB. Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychol Bull. 1992;111:172–175.
    1. Obradovic M, Lal A, Liedgens H. Validity and responsiveness of EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) versus Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) questionnaire in chronic pain. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:110.
    1. Rabin R, Charro F. de. EQ-SD: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33:337–343.
    1. Roos EM, Lohmander LS. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:64.
    1. Selim AJ, Rogers W, Fleishman JA, et al. Updated U.S. population standard for the Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey (VR-12). Qual Life Res. 2009;18:43–52.
    1. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43:203–220.
    1. Stark RG, Reitmeir P, Leidl R, König H-H. Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in inflammatory bowel disease in Germany. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2010;16:42–51.
    1. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42.
    1. Turner N, Campbell J, Peters TJ, Wiles N, Hollinghurst S. A comparison of four different approaches to measuring health utility in depressed patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:81.
    1. Wu AW, Jacobson KL, Frick KD, et al. Validity and responsiveness of the euroqol as a measure of health-related quality of life in people enrolled in an AIDS clinical trial. Qual Life Res. 2002;11:273–282.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit