Establishing a common metric for patient-reported outcomes in cancer patients: linking patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS), numerical rating scale, and patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE).
Establishing a common metric for patient-reported outcomes in cancer patients: linking patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS), numerical rating scale, and patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE).
复制标题
在癌症患者中建立患者报告结局的通用指标：将患者报告结局测量信息系统（PROMIS）、数值评定量表和不良事件通用术语标准（PRO-CTCAE）的患者报告结局版本相关联。
DOI：
10.1186/s41687-020-00271-0
复制
发表时间：
2020-12-10
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
Sloan JA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lee MK;Schalet BD;Cella D;Yost KJ;Dueck AC;Novotny PJ;Sloan JA
研究癌症患者症状的研究人员和临床医生必须从各种量表中进行选择。了解一项措施的得分如何转化为另一项措施将是有益的。采用项目反应理论（IRT）和单组设计，其中相同样本回答所有测量，我们制作了交叉步行表，将5个0-10数字评定量表（NRS）和不良事件通用术语标准患者报告结局版本中的15个项目连接起来（PRO-CTCAE，在1-5量表上评分）与来自NIH患者报告结局测量信息系统（PROMIS®）的六个不同量表的T评分度量进行比较。我们进行链接的结构包括情绪困扰-焦虑、情绪困扰-抑郁、疲劳、睡眠障碍、疼痛强度和疼痛干扰。我们通过比较项目内容和测试包含每个结构的项目集的一维性来测试IRT之间的结构相似性链接假设。我们还调查了相关措施的联系，并通过检查标准化的平均差异，无论是跨年龄和性别亚组的联系是不变的。对于满足假设的措施，我们进行了联系。一般而言，NRS评分为0对应于PROMIS T评分量表上的约38.2（平均值= 50; SD = 10）;而NRS评分为10对应于PROMIS T评分约72.7。同样，PRO-CTCAE的最低/最好评分1对应T评分量表的39.8，最高/最差评分5对应72.0。我们在单项症状测量和PROMIS简表之间建立了强有力的联系。在线版本包含补充材料，可通过10.1186/s41687-020-00271-0获得。
Researchers and clinicians studying symptoms experienced by people with cancer must choose from various scales. It would be useful to know how the scores on one measure translate to another. Using item response theory (IRT) with the single-group design, in which the same sample answers all measures, we produced crosswalk tables linking five 0–10 numeric rating scale (NRS) and 15 items from Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE, scored on a 1–5 scale) to the T-Score metric of six different scales from the NIH Patient reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®). The constructs, for which we conducted linking, include emotional distress-anxiety, emotional distress-depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, pain intensity, and pain interference. We tested the IRT linking assumption of construct similarity between measures by comparing item content and testing unidimensionality of item sets comprising each construct. We also investigated the correlation of the measures to be linked and, by inspecting standardized mean differences, whether the linkage is invariant across age and gender subgroups. For measures that satisfied the assumptions, we conducted linking. In general, an NRS score of 0 corresponded to about 38.2 on the PROMIS T-Score scale (mean = 50; SD = 10); whereas an NRS score of 10 corresponded to a PROMIS T-Score of approximately 72.7. Similarly, the lowest/best score of 1 on PRO-CTCAE corresponded to 39.8 on T-score scale and the highest/worst score of 5 corresponded to 72.0. We produced robust linking between single item symptom measures and PROMIS short forms. The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-020-00271-0.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2.8
作者：
Ahmad F;Jhajj AK;Stewart DE;Burghardt M;Bierman AS
通讯作者：
Bierman AS
影响因子：
1.2
作者：
STOCKING, ML;LORD, FM
通讯作者：
LORD, FM
影响因子：
0.8
作者：
HAEBARA, T
通讯作者：
HAEBARA, T
影响因子：
45.3
作者：
Buchanan, DR;White, JD;Minasian, LM
通讯作者：
Minasian, LM
影响因子：
3
作者：
Zinbarg, RE;Revelle, W;Li, W
通讯作者：
Li, W