Browsing by Author "Reinke, Emily K"
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Can PROMIS measures be used to create subgroups for patients seeking orthopaedic care?(Bone & joint open, 2021-07) George, Steven Z; Yan, Xiaofang; Luo, Sheng; Olson, Steven A; Reinke, Emily K; Bolognesi, Michael P; Horn, Maggie EAims
Patient-reported outcome measures have become an important part of routine care. The aim of this study was to determine if Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures can be used to create patient subgroups for individuals seeking orthopaedic care.Methods
This was a cross-sectional study of patients from Duke University Department of Orthopaedic Surgery clinics (14 ambulatory and four hospital-based). There were two separate cohorts recruited by convenience sampling (i.e. patients were included in the analysis only if they completed PROMIS measures during a new patient visit). Cohort #1 (n = 12,141; December 2017 to December 2018,) included PROMIS short forms for eight domains (Physical Function, Pain Interference, Pain Intensity, Depression, Anxiety, Sleep Quality, Participation in Social Roles, and Fatigue) and Cohort #2 (n = 4,638; January 2019 to August 2019) included PROMIS Computer Adaptive Testing instruments for four domains (Physical Function, Pain Interference, Depression, and Sleep Quality). Cluster analysis (K-means method) empirically derived subgroups and subgroup differences in clinical and sociodemographic factors were identified with one-way analysis of variance.Results
Cluster analysis yielded four subgroups with similar clinical characteristics in Cohort #1 and #2. The subgroups were: 1) Normal Function: within normal limits in Physical Function, Pain Interference, Depression, and Sleep Quality; 2) Mild Impairment: mild deficits in Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Sleep Quality but with Depression within normal limits; 3) Impaired Function, Not Distressed: moderate deficits in Physical Function and Pain Interference, but within normal limits for Depression and Sleep Quality; and 4) Impaired Function, Distressed: moderate (Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Sleep Quality) and mild (Depression) deficits.Conclusion
These findings suggest orthopaedic patient subgroups differing in physical function, pain, and psychosocial distress can be created from as few as four different PROMIS measures. Longitudinal research is necessary to determine whether these subgroups have prognostic validity. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):493-502.Item Open Access Reporting and utilization of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) measures in orthopedic research and practice: a systematic review.(Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2020-11-23) Horn, Maggie E; Reinke, Emily K; Couce, Logan J; Reeve, Bryce B; Ledbetter, Leila; George, Steven ZBACKGROUND:The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information SystemⓇ (PROMISⓇ) is a dynamic system of psychometrically sound patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. There has been a recent increase in the use of PROMIS measures, yet little has been written about the reporting of these measures in the field of orthopedics. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review to determine the uptake of PROMIS measures across orthopedics and to identify the type of PROMIS measures and domains that are most commonly used in orthopedic research and practice. METHODS:We searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus using keywords and database-specific subject headings to capture orthopedic studies reporting PROMIS measures through November 2018. Our inclusion criteria were use of PROMIS measures as an outcome or used to describe a population of patients in an orthopedic setting in patients ≥ 18 years of age. We excluded non-quantitative studies, reviews, and case reports. RESULTS:Our final search yielded 88 studies published from 2013 through 2018, with 57% (50 studies) published in 2018 alone. By body region, 28% (25 studies) reported PROMIS measures in the upper extremity (shoulder, elbow, hand), 36% (32 studies) reported PROMIS measures in the lower extremity (hip, knee, ankle, foot), 19% (17 studies) reported PROMIS measures in the spine, 10% (9 studies) reported PROMIS measures in trauma patients, and 6% (5 studies) reported PROMIS measures in general orthopedic patients. The majority of studies reported between one and three PROMIS domains (82%, 73 studies). The PROMIS Computerized Adaptive Test (CAT) approach was most commonly used (81%, 72 studies). The most frequently reported PROMIS domains were physical function (81%, 71 studies) and pain interference (61%, 54 studies). CONCLUSION:Our review found an increase in the reporting of PROMIS measures over the recent years. Utilization of PROMIS measures in orthopedic populations is clinically appropriate and can facilitate communication of outcomes across different provider types and with reduced respondent burden. REGISTRATION:The protocol for this systematic review was designed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines and is registered with the PROSPERO database (CRD42018088260).Item Open Access Select Biomarkers on the Day of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Predict Poor Patient-Reported Outcomes at 2-Year Follow-Up: A Pilot Study.(BioMed research international, 2018-01) Lattermann, Christian; Conley, Caitlin E-W; Johnson, Darren L; Reinke, Emily K; Huston, Laura J; Huebner, Janet L; Chou, Ching-Heng; Kraus, Virginia B; Spindler, Kurt P; Jacobs, Cale ABackground:The majority of patients develop posttraumatic osteoarthritis within 15 years of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Inflammatory and chondrodegenerative biomarkers have been associated with both pain and the progression of osteoarthritis; however, it remains unclear if preoperative biomarkers differ for patients with inferior postoperative outcomes. Hypothesis/Purpose:The purpose of this pilot study was to compare biomarkers collected on the day of ACL reconstruction between patients with "good" or "poor" 2-year postoperative outcomes. We hypothesized that inflammatory cytokines and chondrodegenerative biomarker concentrations would be significantly greater in patients with poorer outcomes. Study Design:Prospective cohort design. Methods:22 patients (9 females, 13 males; age = 19.5 ± 4.1 years; BMI = 24.1 ± 3.6 kg/m2) previously enrolled in a randomized trial evaluating early anti-inflammatory treatment after ACL injury. Biomarkers of chondrodegeneration and inflammation were assessed from synovial fluid (sf) samples collected on the day of ACL reconstruction. Participants completed Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) questionnaires two years following surgery. Patients were then categorized based on whether their KOOS Quality of Life (QOL) score surpassed the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) threshold of 62.5 points or the IKDC PASS threshold of 75.9 points. Results:Patients that failed to reach the QOL PASS threshold after surgery (n = 6, 27%) had significantly greater sf interleukin-1 alpha (IL-1α; p = 0.004), IL-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1ra; p = 0.03), and matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9; p = 0.01) concentrations on the day of surgery. Patients that failed to reach the IKDC PASS threshold (n = 9, 41%) had significantly greater sf IL-1α (p = 0.02). Conclusion:These pilot data suggest that initial biochemical changes after injury may be an indicator of poor outcomes that are not mitigated by surgical stabilization alone. Biological adjuvant treatment in addition to ACL reconstruction may be beneficial; however, these data should be used for hypothesis generation and more definitive randomized clinical trials are necessary.Item Open Access Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures to characterise health status for patients seeking care from an orthopaedic provider: a retrospective cohort study.(BMJ open, 2021-09-02) Horn, Maggie E; Reinke, Emily K; Yan, Xiaofang; Luo, Sheng; Bolognesi, Michael; Reeve, Bryce B; George, Steven Z; Comprehensive Outcomes in Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation Data System (COORDS) groupObjectives
Characterise the health status of patients newly consulting an orthopaedic specialist across eight clinical subspecialties.Design
Retrospective cohort.Setting
18 orthopaedic clinics, including 8 subspecialties (14 ambulatory and 4 hospital based) within an academic health system.Participants
14 910 patients consulting an orthopaedic specialist for a new patient consultation who completed baseline Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures associated with their appointment from 17 November 2017 to 13 May 2019. Patients were aged 55.72±5.8 years old, and 61.3% were female and 79.3% were Caucasian and 13.4% were black or African American. Patients who did not complete PROMIS measures or cancelled their appointment were excluded from the study.Primary outcome
PROMIS domains of physical function, pain interference, pain intensity, depression, anxiety, fatigue, sleep disturbance and the ability to participate in social roles.Results
Mean PROMIS scores for physical function were (38.1±9.2), pain interference (58.9±8.1), pain intensity (4.6±2.5), depression (47.9±8.9), anxiety (49.9±9.5), fatigue (50.5±10.3), sleep disturbance (51.1±9.8) and ability to participate in social roles (49.1±10.3) for the entire cohort. Across the clinical subspecialties, neurosurgery, spine and trauma patients were most profoundly affected across almost all domains and patients consulting with a hand specialist reported the least limitations or symptoms across domains. There was a moderate, negative correlation between pain interference and physical functioning (r=-0.59) and low correlations between pain interference with anxiety (r=0.36), depression (r=0.39) as well as physical function and anxiety (r=-0.32) and depression(r=-0.30) and sleep (r=-0.31).Conclusions
We directly compared clinically meaningful PROMIS domains across eight orthopaedic subspecialties, which would not have been possible with legacy measures alone. These results support PROMIS's utility as a common metric to assess and compare patient health status across multiple orthopaedic subspecialties.Item Open Access Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Hormonal Contraceptive Management Practice Patterns in the Perioperative Period for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.(Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2022-04) Christian, Robert A; Lander, Sarah T; Bonazza, Nicholas A; Reinke, Emily K; Lentz, Trevor A; Dodds, Julie A; Mulcahey, Mary K; Ford, Anne C; Wittstein, Jocelyn RPurpose
To evaluate the venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis practices of surgeons performing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in female patients using hormonal contraceptives.Methods
Our research team designed an investigational survey using branching logic that was made available to the AANA membership. The survey was designed to identify clinical decision making regarding VTE prophylaxis after ACLR in patients without risk factors for VTE, the counseling of patients about VTE risk associated with hormonal contraceptives, and the use of VTE prophylaxis after ACLR in patients taking hormonal contraceptives.Results
Ninety-four respondents completed the survey. Eighty-nine respondents identified their gender (63% male and 37% female respondents). Respondents reported performing the following number of ACLRs annually: more than 50 (40%), 30 to 50 (29%), 15 to 30 (29%), and fewer than 15 (2%). Of the respondents, 62 (67%) reported that VTE developed after ACLR in their patients (male patients only, 32%; female patients only, 24%; and both male and female patients, 34%). Sixty-seven percent used chemoprophylaxis after ACLR. Surgeons who asked about hormonal contraceptive use were more likely to be women (P = .01; odds ratio [OR], 4.2). Surgeons who changed their VTE prophylaxis plan as a result of asking about hormonal contraceptive use were more likely to be women (P = .02; OR, 2.8). Surgeons who asked about hormonal contraceptive use were more likely to have female patients with VTE after ACLR (P = .03; OR, 2.9). Surgeons who changed their VTE prophylaxis plan as a result of asking about hormonal contraceptive use were more likely to have female patients with VTE after ACLR (P = .001; OR, 4.6).Conclusions
There is no standard of care for VTE prophylaxis after ACLR. A surgeon's own gender and prior clinical experience with VTE after ACLR may influence his or her likelihood to consider a patient's hormonal contraceptive use regarding VTE risk after ACLR.Clinical relevance
The use of hormonal contraception is a risk factor for VTE in female patients undergoing ACLR. It is important to identify current practice patterns and the need for a standard of care.