4.6 Article

PROMIS measures of pain, fatigue, negative affect, physical function, and social function demonstrated clinical validity across a range of chronic conditions

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 73, 期 -, 页码 89-102

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.038

关键词

Responsiveness; Validity; Psychometrics; Outcomes research; Patient-reported outcomes

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [U54AR057951, U01AR052177, R01CA60068, U54AR057943, U54AR057926, U01AR057948, U01AR052170, U01AR057954, U01AR052171, U01AR052181, U01AR057956, U01AR052158, U01AR057929, U01AR057936, U01AR052155, U01AR057971, U01AR057940, U01AR057967, U01AR052186]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To present an overview of a series of studies in which the clinical validity of the National Institutes of Health's Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (NIH; PROMIS) measures was evaluated, by domain, across six clinical populations. Study Design and Setting: Approximately 1,500 individuals at baseline and 1,300 at follow-up completed PROMIS measures. The analyses reported in this issue were conducted post hoc, pooling data across six previous studies, and accommodating the different designs of the six, within-condition, parent studies. Changes in T-scores, standardized response means, and effect sizes were calculated in each study. When a parent study design allowed, known groups validity was calculated using a linear mixed model. Results: The results provide substantial support for the clinical validity of nine PROMIS measures in a range of chronic conditions. Conclusion: The cross-condition focus of the analyses provided a unique and multifaceted perspective on how PROMIS measures function in real-world clinical settings and provides external anchors that can support comparative effectiveness research. The current body of clinical validity evidence for the nine PROMIS measures indicates the success of NIH PROMIS in developing measures that are effective across a range of chronic conditions. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据