Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

PROMs in Sports Medicine

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Sports Medicine Physician

Abstract

PROMs in sports medicine could be a useful tool to analyze the results of several sports injuries in athletes and sports practitioners, regardless of the involved anatomical site (the shoulder, hip, knee, foot, and ankle). Moreover, the athletic population has singular expectations and objectives, differing from the general and sedentary population. Therefore, PROMs could have a more significant role in sports, particularly when designed for this specific population, and the level of physical demand reported, the stress involved in sports practice due to competition level should be used as patient’s references. This chapter approaches different types of PROMs commonly used in orthopedics and also discusses the development of PROMs in sports medicine.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Ruzbarsky JJ, Marom N, Marx RG. Measuring quality and outcomes in sports medicine. Clin Sports Med. 2018;37(3):463–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Young NL, Williams JI, Yoshida KK, Wright JG. Measurement properties of the activities scale for kids. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(2):125–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kyte DG, Calvert M, van der Wees PJ, ten Hove R, Tolan S, Hill JC. An introduction to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in physiotherapy. Physiotherapy. 2015;101(2):119–25.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hefti E, Müller W, Jakob RP, Stäubli H-U. Evaluation of knee ligament injuries with the IKDC form. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1993;1:226–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL, Harner CD, Kurosaka M, Neyret P, et al. Development and validation of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29:600–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Anderson AF, Irrgang JJ, Kocher MS, Mann BJ, Harrast JJ. The International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form: normative data. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34:128–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL, Harner CD, Neyret P, Richmond JC, et al. Responsiveness of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34:1567–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Greco NJ, Anderson AF, Mann BJ, Cole BJ, Farr J, Nissen CW, et al. Responsiveness of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form in comparison to the western Ontario and Mcmaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Modified Cincinnati Knee Rating System, and Short Form 36 in patients with focal art. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38:891–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hudak P, Amadio PC, Bobardier C. UECG. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand). Am J Ind Med. 1996;29:602–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Institute for Work and Health. About the DASH [Internet]. 2006. http://www.dash.iwh.on.ca/about-dash.

  11. Beaton DE, Wright JG, Katz JN, Amadio P, Bombardier C, Cole D, et al. Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1038–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Roos EM, Brandsson S, Karlsson J. Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for ankle ligament reconstruction. Foot Ankle Int. 2001;22:788–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. A user’s guide to: Foot and Ankle Outcome Score FAOS [Internet]. 2003. http://www.koos.nu.

  14. Chen L, Lyman S, Do H. Validation of foot and ankle outcome score for hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Int. 2012;33:1145–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hogan MV, Mani S, Chan J, Do H, Deland J, Ellis S. Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for hallux rigidus. HSS J. 2016;12:44–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sierevelt IN, Zwiers R, Schats W, Haverkamp D, Terwee CB, Nolte PA, et al. Measurement properties of the most commonly used foot- and ankle-specific questionnaires: the FFI, FAOS and FAAM. A systematic review. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(7):2059–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Jia Y, Huang H, Gagnier JJ. A systematic review of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures for use in patients with foot or ankle diseases. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(8):1969–2010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Imote AM, Peccin MS, Rodrigues R, Mizusaki JM. Translation, cultural adaptation and validation of Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) questionnaire into Portuguese. Acta Ortop Bras. 2009;17:232–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon L. The minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients. A choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, MOS Short Form 36, and Pain Scales. Spine J. 2008;8(6):968–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Parker SL, Adogwa O, Paul AR, Anderson WN, Aaronson O, Cheng JS, et al. Utility of minimum clinically important difference in assessing pain, disability, and health state after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;14(5):598–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Copay AG, Cher DJ. Is the Oswestry Disability Index a valid measure of response to sacroiliac joint treatment? Qual Life Res. 2016;25:283–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O’Brien JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980;66(8):271–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. EuroQol Group. EUROQOL—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37(1):53–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Huo T, Guo Y, Shenkman E, Muller K. Assessing the reliability of the Short Form 12 (SF-12) health survey in adults with mental health conditions: a report from the wellness incentive and navigation (WIN) study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16:34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bohannon RW, Maljanian R, Landes M. Test-retest reliability of Short Form (SF)-12 component scores of patients with stroke. Int J Rehabil Res. 2004;27:149–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Cheak-Zamora NC, Wyrwich KW, McBride TD. Reliability and validity of the SF-12v2 in the medical expenditure panel survey. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:727–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Luo X, George ML, Kakouras I, Edwards CL, Pietrobon R, Richardson W, Hey L. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Short Form 12-item Survey (SF-12) in patients with back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(15):1739–45.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Mahler E, Cuperus N, Bijlsma J, et al. Responsiveness of four patient-reported outcome measures to assess physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Scand J Rheumatol. 2016;45:518–27.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Dingemans SA, Kleipool SC, Mulders MAM, et al. Normative data for the lower extremity functional scale (LEFS). Acta Orthop. 2017;88:422–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Binkley JM, et al. The lower extremity functional scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. Phys Ther. 1999;79:371–83.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Mehta SP, Fulton A, Quach C, et al. Measurement properties of the lower extremity functional scale: a systematic review. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2016;46:200–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Santos JPM, da Silva RA, Fernandes MTP, et al. Uso do questionário lower extremity functional scale (LEFS-Brasil) em comparação com o Índice Algofuncional de Lequesne para definição de gravidade na osteoartrite de joelho e quadril. Rev Bras Reumatol. 2017;57:274–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Naal FD, Miozzari HH, Kelly BT, et al. The hip sports activity scale (HSAS) for patients with femoroacetabular impingement. Hip Int. 2013;23:204–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lund B, Mygind-Klavsen B, Grønbech Nielsen T, et al. Danish hip arthroscopy registry (DHAR): the outcome of patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). J Hip Preserv Surg. 2017;4:170–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Thorborg K, Tijssen M, Habets B, et al. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires for young to middle-aged adults with hip and groin disability: a systematic review of the clinimetric evidence. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49:812.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Martin RL, Kelly BT, Philippon MJ. Evidence of validity for the hip outcome score. Arthroscopy. 2006;22:1304–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Martin RL, Philippon MJ. Evidence of validity for the hip outcome score in hip arthroscopy. Arthroscopy. 2007;23:822–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Martin RL, Philippon MJ. Evidence of reliability and responsiveness for the hip outcome score. Arthroscopy. 2008;24:676–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sueyoshi T, Emoto G, Yato T. Correlation between single assessment numerical evaluation score and Lysholm score in primary total knee arthroplasty patients. Arthroplast Today. 2018;4(1):99–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Faschinbauer M, Kasparek M, Schandler P. Predictive values of WOMAC, KOOS, and SF-12 score for knee arthroplasty: data from OAI. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25:3333–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lysholm J, Gillquist J. Evaluation of the knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med. 1982;10:150–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Tegner Y, Lysholm J. Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;(198):43–9.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Peccin MS, Ciconelli R, Cohen M. Questionário específico para sintomas do joelho “Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale”: tradução e validação para a língua portuguesa. Acta Ortopédica Brasileira. 2006;14(5):268–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Swanenburg J, Koch PP, Meier N, Wirth B. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kujala UM, Jaakkola LH, Koskinen SK, Taimela S, Hurme M, Nelimarkka O. Scoring of patellofemoral disorders. Arthroscopy. 1993;9(2):159–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Crossley KM, Bennell KL, Cowan SM, Green S. Analysis of outcome measures for persons with patellofemoral pain: which are reliable and valid? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(5):815–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Green A, Liles C, Rushton A, Kyte DG. Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) in patellofemoral pain syndrome: a systematic review. Man Ther. 2014;19(6):517–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Myer GD, Barber Foss KD, Gupta R, Hewett TE, Ittenbach RF. Analysis of patient-reported anterior knee pain scale: implications for scale development in children and adolescents. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(3):653–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Ittenbach RF, Huang G, Barber Foss KD, Hewett TE, Myer GD. Reliability and validity of the anterior knee pain scale: applications for use as an epidemiologic screener. PLoS One. 2016;11(7):e0159204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, State University of Campinas—UNICAMP, Exercise and Sports Medicine, Campinas, Sao Paulo, Brazil

    Sérgio Rocha Piedade

  2. Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, UNIFESP, Sao Paulo, Brazil

    Mario Ferreti Filho

  3. Department of Radiology, State University of Campinas—UNICAMP, Exercise and Sports Medicine, Campinas, Sao Paulo, Brazil

    Daniel Miranda Ferreira

  4. Instituto Jaime Sulllitel, Rosário, Argentina

    Daniel A. Slullitel

  5. Department of Arthroscopy and Sports Surgeon, Sunshine Hospitals, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India

    Sarthak Patnaik

  6. Hospital General de Villalba, Madrid, Spain

    Gonzalo Samitier

  7. Department of Musculoskeletal Disorders, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Salerno Baronissi, Salerno, Italy

    Nicola Maffulli

Authors
  1. Sérgio Rocha Piedade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mario Ferreti Filho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel Miranda Ferreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daniel A. Slullitel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sarthak Patnaik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gonzalo Samitier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Nicola Maffulli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sérgio Rocha Piedade .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopedics and Traumatology, State University of Campinas – UNICAMP, Campinas / Sao Paulo, Brazil

    Sérgio Rocha Piedade

  2. Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, University of Munich (TUM), München, Bayern, Germany

    Andreas B. Imhoff

  3. Ascot Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand

    Mark Clatworthy

  4. Department of Orthopedics & Traumatology, Federal University of São Paulo, Vila Clementino - São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Moises Cohen

  5. Espregueira-Mendes Sports Centre, Clínica do Dragão, Porto, Portugal

    João Espregueira-Mendes

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 ISAKOS

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Piedade, S.R. et al. (2019). PROMs in Sports Medicine. In: Rocha Piedade, S., Imhoff, A., Clatworthy, M., Cohen, M., Espregueira-Mendes, J. (eds) The Sports Medicine Physician. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10433-7_50

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10433-7_50

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-10432-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-10433-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation