Download PDF
OP-Journal 2021; 37(01): 55-62
DOI: 10.1055/a-1203-3352
Fachwissen

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) – eine Übersicht

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) – an Overview
Michael Müller
,
Peter Biberthaler
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

PROMs sind Fragebogen-Instrumente, mit denen ein Patient kostengünstig und ohne relevanten medizinischen Personalaufwand mittels Selbstevaluation den Funktionellen Status eines Organsystemes erheben kann. In Bereich der Unfallchirurgie und Orthopädie stehen mittlerweile eine Vielfalt an PROMs für verschiedene Fragestellungen zur Verfügung. Mit PROMS kann ein objektives Feedback über den Krankheits-/Heilungsverlauf erstellt werden. Hiermit können individuelle Behandlungsverläufe überwacht werden, aber auch Daten für wissenschaftliche oder gesundheitsökonomische Auswertungen generiert werden.

Abstract

PROMs are questionnaire instruments with which a patient can ascertain the functional status of an organ system by means of self-evaluation at low cost and without relevant medical personnel effort. In the field of trauma surgery and orthopedics, a variety of PROMs are now available for different questions. With PROMS an objective feedback about the course of the disease/healing process can be created. This can be used to monitor individual courses of treatment, but also to generate data for scientific or health economic evaluations.

Schlüsselwörter

PROM - Patient reported outcome meassures - Selbstevaluation - Fragebogen

Key words

PROM - patient reported outcome meassures - self evaluation - questionnaire


Publication History

Article published online:
10 November 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Kärrholm J. The Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (www.shpr.se). Acta Orthop 2010; 81: 3-4 http://www.shpr.se Acta Orthop 2010; 81: 3–4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 AUC – Akademie der Unfallchirurgie, Arbeitskreis AltersTraumaRegister DGU® . Das AltersTraumaRegister DGU® – aktueller Stand, Methodik und Publikationsrichtlinie. Unfallchirurg 2019; 122: 820-822
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Waljee J, McGlinn EP, Sears ED. et al. Patient expectations and patient-reported outcomes in surgery: a systematic review. Surgery 2014; 155: 799-808
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB. Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ primary care study. Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders. Patient Health Questionnaire. JAMA 1999; 282: 1737-1744
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Nelson EC, Eftimovska E, Lind C. et al. Patient reported outcome measures in practice. BMJ 2015; 350: g7818
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Porter M, Lee T. The Strategy That Will Fix Health Care. Harvard Business Review 2013; 91: 1-19
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Raspe H. Value-based health care (VbHC): woher und wohin?. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2018; 130: 8-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Matthes N. USA: Qualitätsbasierte Vergütung verbessert das Outcome. Dtsch Arztebl 2019; 116: A-248
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Wilson I, Bohm E, Lübbeke A. et al. Orthopaedic registries with patient-reported outcome measures. EFORT Open Rev 2019; 4: 357-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Czypionka T, Achleitner S. Patient Reported Outcome and Experience Measures. 2018. Im Internet (Stand: 22.10.2020): https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Patient-Reported-Outcome-and-Experience-Measures-Czypionka-Achleitner/bce5373174bafe7dcf56265bf8a3b5792e0ec677
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Rabin R, De Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 2001; 33: 337-343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Wille N, Badia X, Bonsel G. et al. Development of the EQ-5D-Y: a child-friendly version of the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res 2010; 19: 875-886
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Hays RD, Sherbourne CD, Mazel RM. The RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0. Health Econ 1993; 2: 217-227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Fitzpatrick R, Fletcher A, Gore S. et al. Quality of life measures in health care. I: Applications and issues in assessment. BMJ 1992; 305: 1074-1077
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987; (214) 160-164
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med 1996; 29: 602-608
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Schmidutz F, Beirer M, Braunstein V. et al. The Munich Shoulder Questionnaire (MSQ): development and validation of an effective patient-reported tool for outcome measurement and patient safety in shoulder surgery. Patient Saf Surg 2012; 6: 9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996; 78: 593-600
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Roach KE, Budiman-Mak E, Songsiridej N. et al. Development of a shoulder pain and disability index. Arthritis Care Res 1991; 4: 143-149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kirkley A, Griffin S, McLintock H. et al. The development and evaluation of a disease-specific quality of life measurement tool for shoulder instability. The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). Am J Sports Med 1998; 26: 764-772
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Beirer M, Friese H, Lenich A. et al. The Elbow Self-Assessment Score (ESAS): development and validation of a new patient-reported outcome measurement tool for elbow disorders. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25: 2230-2236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 MacDermid JC. Outcome evaluation in patients with elbow pathology: issues in instrument development and evaluation. J Hand Ther 2001; 14: 105-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 King GJ, Adams RA, Morrey BF. Total elbow arthroplasty: revision with use of a non-custom semiconstrained prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997; 79: 394-400
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Morrey BF, Adams RA. Semiconstrained arthroplasty for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis of the elbow. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1992; 74: 479-490
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Dawson J, Doll H, Boller I. et al. The development and validation of a patient-reported questionnaire to assess outcomes of elbow surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90: 466-473
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Schneeberger AG, Kösters MC, Steens W. Comparison of the subjective elbow value and the Mayo elbow performance score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014; 23: 308-312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Chung KC, Pillsbury MS, Walters MR. et al. Reliability and validity testing of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. J Hand Surg Am 1998; 23: 575-587
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Beirer M, Serly J, Vester H. et al. The Munich Wrist Questionnaire (MWQ) – development and validation of a new patient-reported outcome measurement tool for wrist disorders. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2016; 17: 167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 MacDermid JC, Turgeon T, Richards RS. et al. Patient rating of wrist pain and disability: a reliable and valid measurement tool. J Orthop Trauma 1998; 12: 577-586
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Bendebba M, Heller J, Ducker TB. et al. Cervical spine outcomes questionnaire: its development and psychometric properties. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002; 27: 2116-2123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Bendebba M, Dizerega GS, Long DM. The Lumbar Spine Outcomes Questionnaire: its development and psychometric properties. Spine J 2007; 7: 118-132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Daltroy LH, Cats-Baril WL, Katz JN. et al. The North American spine society lumbar spine outcome assessment Instrument: reliability and validity tests. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996; 21: 741-749
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB. et al. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 1980; 66: 271-273
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1969; 51: 737-755
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Nilsdotter AK, Lohmander LS, Klässbo M. et al. Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS)–validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2003; 4: 10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. et al. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996; 78: 185-190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 McConnell S, Kolopack P, Davis AM. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC): a review of its utility and measurement properties. Arthritis Rheum 2001; 45: 453-461
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL. et al. Development and validation of the international knee documentation committee subjective knee form. Am J Sports Med 2001; 29: 600-613
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS. et al. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)–development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1998; 28: 88-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Lysholm J, Gillquist J. Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med 1982; 10: 150-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Beirer M, Fiedler N, Huber S. et al. The Munich Knee Questionnaire: Development and Validation of a New Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Tool for Knee Disorders. Arthroscopy 2015; 31: 1522-1529
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D. et al. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998; 80: 63-69
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Tegner Y, Lysholm J. Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1985; (198) 43-49
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Sihvonen R, Järvelä T, Aho H. et al. Validation of the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) for patients with a degenerative meniscal tear: a meniscal pathology-specific quality-of-life index. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94: e65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Domsic RT, Saltzman CL. Ankle osteoarthritis scale. Foot Ankle Int 1998; 19: 466-471
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS. et al. Clinical Rating Systems for the Ankle-Hindfoot, Midfoot, Hallux, and Lesser Toes. Foot Ankle Int 1994; 15: 349-353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Budiman-Mak E, Conrad KJ, Roach KE. The Foot Function Index: a measure of foot pain and disability. J Clin Epidemiol 1991; 44: 561-570
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Roos EM, Brandsson S, Karlsson J. Validation of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score for Ankle Ligament Reconstruction. Foot Ankle Int 2001; 22: 788-794
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Martin R, Irrgang J, Burdett R. et al. Evidence of validity of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM). Foot Ankle Int 2005; 26: 968-983
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Hale SA, Hertel J. Reliability and Sensitivity of the Foot and Ankle Disability Index in Subjects With Chronic Ankle Instability. J Athl Train 2005; 40: 35-40
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Karlsson J, Peterson L. Evaluation of ankle joint function: the use of a scoring scale. Foot 1991; 1: 15-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Greve F, Braun KF, Vitzthum V. et al. The Munich Ankle Questionnaire (MAQ): a self-assessment tool for a comprehensive evaluation of ankle disorders. Eur J Med Res 2018; 23: 46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Olerud C, Molander H. A scoring scale for symptom evaluation after ankle fracture. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1984; 103: 190-194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Karsten MM, Speiser D, Hartmann C. et al. Web-Based Patient-Reported Outcomes Using the International Consortium for Health Outcome Measurement Dataset in a Major German University Hospital: Observational Study. JMIR Cancer 2018; 4: e11373
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Zhu R, Zhou Z. A real-time articulated human motion tracking using tri-axis inertial/magnetic sensors package. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2004; 12: 295-302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Johnson LB, Sumner S, Duong T. et al. Validity and reliability of smartphone magnetometer-based goniometer evaluation of shoulder abduction – A pilot study. Man Ther 2015; 20: 777-782
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Mejia-Hernandez K, Chang A, Eardley-Harris N. et al. Smartphone applications for the evaluation of pathologic shoulder range of motion and shoulder scores–a comparative study. JSES Open Access 2018; 2: 109-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Kingsley C, Patel S. Patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures. BJA Education 2017; 17: 137-144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Hostettler S, Kraft E, Bosshard C. Patient-reported outcome measures: die Patientensicht zählt. Schweiz Ärzteztg 2018; 99: 1348-1352
    PubMedGoogle Scholar