Advertisement

PROMs in Sports Medicine

  • Sérgio Rocha PiedadeEmail author
  • Mario Ferreti Filho
  • Daniel Miranda Ferreira
  • Daniel A. Slullitel
  • Sarthak Patnaik
  • Gonzalo Samitier
  • Nicola Maffulli
Chapter

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.

Keywords

Patient-reported outcome measures Patient outcome assessment Sports medicine Athletic injuries 

References

  1. 1.
    Ruzbarsky JJ, Marom N, Marx RG. Measuring quality and outcomes in sports medicine. Clin Sports Med. 2018;37(3):463–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Institute for Work and Health. About the DASH [Internet]. 2006. http://www.dash.iwh.on.ca/about-dash.
  11. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    A user’s guide to: Foot and Ankle Outcome Score FAOS [Internet]. 2003. http://www.koos.nu.
  14. 14.
    Chen L, Lyman S, Do H. Validation of foot and ankle outcome score for hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Int. 2012;33:1145–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O’Brien JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980;66(8):271–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    EuroQol Group. EUROQOL—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37(1):53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dingemans SA, Kleipool SC, Mulders MAM, et al. Normative data for the lower extremity functional scale (LEFS). Acta Orthop. 2017;88:422–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Binkley JM, et al. The lower extremity functional scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. Phys Ther. 1999;79:371–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Martin RL, Kelly BT, Philippon MJ. Evidence of validity for the hip outcome score. Arthroscopy. 2006;22:1304–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Martin RL, Philippon MJ. Evidence of validity for the hip outcome score in hip arthroscopy. Arthroscopy. 2007;23:822–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Martin RL, Philippon MJ. Evidence of reliability and responsiveness for the hip outcome score. Arthroscopy. 2008;24:676–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kujala UM, Jaakkola LH, Koskinen SK, Taimela S, Hurme M, Nelimarkka O. Scoring of patellofemoral disorders. Arthroscopy. 1993;9(2):159–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISAKOS 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sérgio Rocha Piedade
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mario Ferreti Filho
    • 2
  • Daniel Miranda Ferreira
    • 3
  • Daniel A. Slullitel
    • 4
  • Sarthak Patnaik
    • 5
  • Gonzalo Samitier
    • 6
  • Nicola Maffulli
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedics and TraumatologyState University of Campinas—UNICAMP, Exercise and Sports MedicineCampinasBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedics and TraumatologyUNIFESPSao PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyState University of Campinas—UNICAMP, Exercise and Sports MedicineCampinasBrazil
  4. 4.Instituto Jaime SulllitelRosárioArgentina
  5. 5.Department of Arthroscopy and Sports SurgeonSunshine HospitalsBhubaneswarIndia
  6. 6.Hospital General de VillalbaMadridSpain
  7. 7.Department of Musculoskeletal Disorders, Faculty of Medicine and SurgeryUniversity of Salerno BaronissiSalernoItaly

Personalised recommendations