Download PDF
Int J Sports Med 2021; 42(09): 853-858
DOI: 10.1055/a-1327-2970
Orthopedics & Biomechanics

Validation and Implementation of 4-domain Patient-reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Tailored for Orthopedic Sports Medicine

Sérgio Rocha Piedade 
1   Exercise and Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas, UNICAMP, Campinas, SP, Brazil
,
Mark R. Hutchinson
2   Department of Orthopedics, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, United States
,
Daniel Miranda Ferreira
3   Department of Radiology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas, UNICAMP, Campinas, SP, Brazil
,
Mario Ferretti
4   Department of Orthopedics, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo, Brazil
,
Nicola Maffulli
5   Centre for Sports and Exercise Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Corrected by:

Correction: Validation and Implementation of 4-domain Patient-reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Tailored for Orthopedic Sports MedicineInt J Sports Med 2021; 42(14): e2-e2
DOI: 10.1055/a-1372-4862

Abstract

The validation of a 4-domain PROM tailored to orthopedic sports medicine was performed through item generation, item scaling, validity and reliability testing, statistical analysis, as well as item reduction. Conbrach's alpha was used to verify item homogeneity, i. e. their accuracy or consistency. This PROM showed acceptable statistical accuracy and clinical applicability for a variety of surgical treatments, regardless of the anatomical injury sites. Moreover, this PROM considers the athletes’ primary physical demands in an non-injured baseline condition, their motivation to continue sports practice and participation, and the influence of sports practice on their quality of life. This 4-domain PROM tailored for orthopedic sports medicine appears to be a valid tool to assess athletes and high-performing practitioners with sports injuries, recording their perception of injury, expectations of treatment; evaluation of postoperative care and treatment received, and perceived outcomes compared to their pre-injury status of physical demands in sports activity. The tool is unique, allowing direct comparisons between athletes’ perception of pre-injury baseline, injury, treatment, and outcome. It will be a welcome adjunct to the sports medicine professional’s tool box when assessing athlete’s status and outcome after injury and intervention.

Key words

outcome studies - sports medicine


Publication History

Received: 24 June 2020

Accepted: 19 November 2020

Article published online:
13 January 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Ruzbarsky JJ, Marom N, Marx RG. Measuring quality and outcomes in sports medicine. Clin Sports Med 2018; 37: 463-482 doi:10.1016/j.csm.2018.03.001
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Kyte DG, Calvert M, van der Wees PJ. et al. An introduction to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in physiotherapy. Physiotherapy 2015; 101: 119-125 doi:10.1016/j.physio.2014.11.003
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Dawson J, Doll H, Fitzpatrick R. et al. The routine use of patient reported outcome measures in healthcare settings. BMJ 2010; 340: c186 doi:10.1136/bmj.c186
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Higginson IJ, Carr AJ. Measuring quality of life: Using quality of life measures in the clinical setting. BMJ 2001; 322: 1297-1300 doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7297.1297
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Valier AR, Jennings AL, Parsons JT. et al. Benefits of and barriers to using patient-rated outcome measures in athletic training. J Athl Train 2014; 49: 674-683 doi:10.4085/1062-6050-49.3.15
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Black N. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ 2013; 346: f167 doi:10.1136/bmj.f167
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Snyder AR, Valovich McLeod TC, Sauers EL. Defining, valuing, and teaching clinical outcomes assessment in professional and post-professional athletic training education programs. Athl Train Educ J 2007; 2: 31-41 doi:10.4085/1947-380x-2.2.31
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Valderas JM, Kotzeva A, Espallargues M. et al. The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: A systematic review of the literature. Qual Life Res 2008; 17: 179-193 doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9295-0
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Hutchings HA, Alrubaiy L. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Routine Clinical Care: The PROMise of a Better Future?. Dig Dis Sci 2017; 1841-1843 doi:10.1007/s10620-017-4658-z
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Hefti F, Muller W, Jakob RP. et al. Evaluation of knee ligament injuries with the IKDC form. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1993; 1: 226-234 doi:10.1007/bf01560215
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL. et al. Development and validation of the international knee documentation committee subjective knee form. Am J Sports Med 2001; 29: 600-613 doi:10.1177/03635465010290051301
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: The DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med 1996; 29: 602-608 doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0274(199606)29:6<602::aid-ajim4>3.0.co;2-l
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Roos EM, Brandsson S, Karlsson J. Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for ankle ligament reconstruction. Foot Ankle Int 2001; 22: 788-794 doi:10.1177/107110070102201004
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 EuroQol Group. EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199-208
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Swanenburg J, Koch PP, Meier N. et al. Function and activity in patients with knee arthroplasty: validity and reliability of a German version of the Lysholm Score and the Tegner Activity Scale. Swiss Med Wkly 2014; 144: w13976 doi:10.4414/smw.2014.13976
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Roos EM, Toksvig-Larsen S. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) - validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1: 17 doi:10.1186/1477-7525-1-17
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Rocha Piedade S, Hutchinson MR, Maffulli N. Presently PROMs are not tailored for athletes and high-performance sports practitioners: a systematic review. Journal of ISAKOS: Joint Disorders & Orthopaedic Sports Medicine 2019; 4: 248-253 doi:10.1136/jisakos-2019-000286
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Harriss DJ, MacSween A, Atkinson G. Ethical Standards in Sport and Exercise Science Research: 2020 Update. Int J Sports Med 2019; 40: 813-817 doi:10.1055/a-1015-3123
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Robinson JM, Cook JL, Purdam C. et al. The VISA-A questionnaire: a valid and reliable index of the clinical severity of Achilles tendinopathy. Br J Sports Med 2001; 35: 335-341 doi:10.1136/bjsm.35.5.335
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Philpot LM, Barnes SA, Brown RM. et al. Barriers and benefits to the use of patient-reported outcome measures in routine clinical care: A qualitative study. Am J Med Qual 2018; 33: 359-364 doi:10.1177/1062860617745986
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Greenhalgh J. The applications of PROs in clinical practice: what are they, do they work, and why?. Qual Life Res 2009; 18: 115-123 doi:10.1007/s11136-008-9430-6
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar