• Nathan N O'Hara, John T Richards, Archie Overmann, Gerard P Slobogean, and Niek S Klazinga.
• Department of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Public Health, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: nohara@som.umaryland.edu.
• Injury. 2020 May 1; 51 Suppl 2: S43-S50.

AbstractThis review describes some of the benefits of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) architecture, determined how frequently PROMIS measures were used in the current orthopaedic trauma literature, and compared the features of PROMIS instruments with other frequently used patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs). PROMIS instruments have several unique elements to their architecture, such as item response theory, computerized adaptive testing options, and scaling using T-scores, that differentiate the instruments from many other PROMs. Over the past five years, 108 different PROMs were reported in 319 studies published in high-impact orthopaedic journals. PROMIS measures, including PROMIS Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Upper Extremity Function, were only used in seven studies (2%). PROMIS measures were found to be comparable to other more common PROMs with respect to respondent burden, administration options, and psychometric assessments specific to fracture patients. Likely, the limited familiarity and interpretability of PROMIS measures in the fracture population remain the most substantial barriers to broader adoption in orthopaedic trauma research.Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

21 keywords...

hide…