RESUMO
PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures assess health status and treatment outcomes in orthopedic care, but they may burden patients with lengthy questionnaires. Predictive models using machine learning, known as computerized adaptive testing (CAT), offer a potential solution. This study evaluates the ability of CAT to improve efficiency of the 30-item Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) and 11-item QuickDASH questionnaires. METHODS: A total of 2,860 DASH and 27,355 QuickDASH respondents were included in the analysis. The CAT system was retrospectively applied to each set of patient responses stored on the instrument to calculate a CAT-specific score for all DASH and QuickDASH entries. The accuracy of the CAT scores, viewed in the context of the minimal clinically important difference for both patient-reported outcome measures (DASH, 12; QuickDASH, 9), was determined through descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation coefficient, intraclass correlation coefficient, and distribution of scores and score differences. RESULTS: The CAT model required an average of 15.3 questions to be answered for the DASH and 5.8 questions for the QuickDASH, representing a 49% and 47% decrease in question burden, respectively. Mean CAT score was the same for DASH and 0.1 points lower for QuickDASH with similar SDs (DASH, 12.9 ± 19.8 vs 12.9 ± 19.9; QuickDASH, 32.7 ± 24.7 vs 32.6 ± 24.6). Pearson coefficients (DASH, 0.99; QuickDASH, 0.98) and intraclass correlation coefficients (DASH, 1.0; QuickDASH, 0.98) indicated strong agreement between scores. The difference between the CAT and full score was less than the minimal clinically important difference in 99% of cases for DASH and approximately 95% of cases for QuickDASH. CONCLUSIONS: The application of CAT to DASH and QuickDASH surveys demonstrated an ability to lessen the response burden with negligible effect on score integrity. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In the case of DASH and QuickDASH, CAT is an appropriate alternative to full questionnaire implementation for patient outcome score collection.
Assuntos
Avaliação da Deficiência , Ombro , Humanos , Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Estudos Retrospectivos , Inquéritos e QuestionáriosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Computerized adaptive test (CAT) questionnaires may allow standardization of patient-reported outcome measures and reductions in questionnaire burden. We evaluated the validity, accuracy, and efficacy of a CAT system in patients with end-stage osteoarthritis undergoing total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: CAT Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOS) and CAT KOOS-JR questionnaires were applied to 1871 standard form KOOS and 1493 KOOS-JR patient responses, respectively. Mean, standard deviations, Pearson's correlation coefficients, interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), frequency distribution plots, and Bland-Altman plots were used to compare the precision, validity, and accuracy between CAT scores and full-form scores. RESULTS: There was a mean reduction of 14 questions (33%) in the CAT KOOS and 1.4 questions (20%) with the CAT KOOS-JR version, compared with the standard KOOS and KOOS-JR surveys, respectively. There were no significant differences between KOOS and CAT KOOS scores with respect to pain (P = .66), symptoms (P = .43), quality of life (P = .99), activities of daily living (P = .68), and sports (P = .84). Similarly, there were no significant differences between the standard form KOOS-JR and CAT KOOS-JR scores (P = .94). There were strong correlations with minimal variability between the CAT KOOS and standard KOOS questionnaires for pain (r = 0.98, ICC: 0.98), symptoms (r = 0.97, ICC: 0.97), quality of life scores (r = 0.99, ICC: 0.99), activities of daily living scores (r = 0.99, ICC: 0.99), and sports scores (r = 0.99, ICC: 0.99). Similarly, there were strong correlations between the KOOS-JR and the CAT KOOS-JR scores (r = 0.99, ICC: 0.99). CONCLUSION: CAT KOOS and the CAT KOOS-JR versions are accurate and reduce questionnaire burden up to one-third compared with standard surveys. CAT versions may improve patient compliance and decrease fatigue.
Assuntos
Artroplastia do Joelho , Osteoartrite do Joelho , Atividades Cotidianas , Computadores , Humanos , Osteoartrite do Joelho/cirurgia , Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente , Qualidade de Vida , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Inquéritos e QuestionáriosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Probability-based computer algorithms that reduce patient burden are currently in high demand. These computer adaptive testing (CAT) methods improve workflow and reduce patient frustration, while achieving high measurement precision. In this study, we evaluated the accuracy and validity of the CAT Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) and the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Joint Replacement (HOOS-JR) by comparing them to the full version of these scoring systems in a subset of patients who had undergone total hip arthroplasties. METHODS: A previously developed CAT HOOS and HOOS-JR was applied to 354 and 1547 HOOS and HOOS-JR patient responses, respectively. Mean, standard deviations, Pearson's correlation coefficients, interclass correlation coefficients, frequency distribution plots, and Bland-Altman plots were used to compare the precision, validity, and accuracy between CAT scores and full-form scores. RESULTS: By modifying the questions to past responses, the CAT HOOS demonstrated a mean reduction of 30% of questions (28 vs 40 questions). There were no significant differences between the full HOOS and CAT HOOS with respect to pain (P = .73), symptoms (P = .94), quality of life (P = .99), activities of daily living (P = .82), and sports (P = .99). There were strong linear relationships between the CAT versions and the standard questionnaires (r > 0.99). The Bland-Altman plot showed that differences between CAT HOOS and full HOOS were independent of the overall scores. CONCLUSION: The CAT HOOS and HOOS-JR have high correlation and require fewer questions to finish compared to the standard full-form questionnaires. This may represent a reliable and practical alternative that may be less burdensome to patients and may help improve compliance for reporting outcome metrics.