手外科人群中 PROMIS 身体功能 CAT 与 PROMIS 上肢功能 CAT v1.2 之间的交叉对比。

IF 2.4 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes Pub Date : 2024-05-30 DOI:10.1186/s41687-024-00736-6
Miranda J Rogers, Joshua R Daryoush, Chong Zhang, Amy Cizik, Angela P Presson, Nikolas H Kazmers
{"title":"手外科人群中 PROMIS 身体功能 CAT 与 PROMIS 上肢功能 CAT v1.2 之间的交叉对比。","authors":"Miranda J Rogers, Joshua R Daryoush, Chong Zhang, Amy Cizik, Angela P Presson, Nikolas H Kazmers","doi":"10.1186/s41687-024-00736-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is no gold standard patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in hand surgery. As a result, a diverse array of PROM instruments have been utilized across centers over time. Lack of score interchangeability limits the ability to compare or conglomerate scores when new instruments are introduced. Our aim was to develop a linkage for the PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 and PROMIS PF CAT scores and develop crosswalk tables for interconversion between these PROMs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective review was conducted to identify adult (≥ 18y) patients seen by orthopaedic hand surgeons at a single academic tertiary care hospital who had completed PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 and PROMIS PF CAT score at the same visit. For those with multiple visits, only one randomly selected visit was included in the analyses. Pearson's correlation was calculated to determine the linear relationship between the scores. Linkage from PF to UE was performed utilizing several commonly utilized equating models (identity, mean, linear, equipercentile and circle-arc methods). The performance of the models was assessed using intraclass correlation (ICC) between observed PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 and estimated PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 scores generated using the model as well as Root Mean Square Error (RMSE). The model chosen as the 'best' was further assessed for population invariance using root expected mean squared difference (REMSD) where < 0.08 were considered good.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 10,081 included patients, mean age was 48.3 (SD = 17.0), and 54% were female (5,477/10,081). Mean UE CAT v1.2 and PF CAT scores were 37 (SD = 9.8) and 46 (SD = 10.0), respectively. There was a strong correlation between the scores (Pearson correlation r = 0.70). All methods performed acceptably (ICC ≥ 0.66 and RMSE < = 7.52 for all). The equipercentile method had the highest ICC (ICC = 0.70 (95% CI 0.69-0.71)) while the mean and circle arc methods had the lowest RMSE. The circle arc method is the most reliable with the smallest standard error and has satisfactory population invariance across age group (REMSD 0.065) and sex (REMSD 0.036).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Crosswalk tables to be used for bidirectional conversion between scores were created.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>III.</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11139816/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Crosswalk between the PROMIS physical function CAT and PROMIS upper extremity CAT v1.2 in a hand surgery population.\",\"authors\":\"Miranda J Rogers, Joshua R Daryoush, Chong Zhang, Amy Cizik, Angela P Presson, Nikolas H Kazmers\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41687-024-00736-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is no gold standard patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in hand surgery. As a result, a diverse array of PROM instruments have been utilized across centers over time. Lack of score interchangeability limits the ability to compare or conglomerate scores when new instruments are introduced. Our aim was to develop a linkage for the PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 and PROMIS PF CAT scores and develop crosswalk tables for interconversion between these PROMs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective review was conducted to identify adult (≥ 18y) patients seen by orthopaedic hand surgeons at a single academic tertiary care hospital who had completed PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 and PROMIS PF CAT score at the same visit. For those with multiple visits, only one randomly selected visit was included in the analyses. Pearson's correlation was calculated to determine the linear relationship between the scores. Linkage from PF to UE was performed utilizing several commonly utilized equating models (identity, mean, linear, equipercentile and circle-arc methods). The performance of the models was assessed using intraclass correlation (ICC) between observed PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 and estimated PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 scores generated using the model as well as Root Mean Square Error (RMSE). The model chosen as the 'best' was further assessed for population invariance using root expected mean squared difference (REMSD) where < 0.08 were considered good.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 10,081 included patients, mean age was 48.3 (SD = 17.0), and 54% were female (5,477/10,081). Mean UE CAT v1.2 and PF CAT scores were 37 (SD = 9.8) and 46 (SD = 10.0), respectively. There was a strong correlation between the scores (Pearson correlation r = 0.70). All methods performed acceptably (ICC ≥ 0.66 and RMSE < = 7.52 for all). The equipercentile method had the highest ICC (ICC = 0.70 (95% CI 0.69-0.71)) while the mean and circle arc methods had the lowest RMSE. The circle arc method is the most reliable with the smallest standard error and has satisfactory population invariance across age group (REMSD 0.065) and sex (REMSD 0.036).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Crosswalk tables to be used for bidirectional conversion between scores were created.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>III.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36660,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11139816/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-024-00736-6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-024-00736-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:手外科没有金标准的患者报告结果测量(PROM)。因此,随着时间的推移,各中心使用了各种不同的 PROM 工具。由于缺乏评分互换性,因此在引入新工具时,比较或合并评分的能力受到限制。我们的目的是为 PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 和 PROMIS PF CAT 评分建立联系,并为这些 PROMs 之间的相互转换建立交叉表:方法:对一家学术性三甲医院的手部整形外科医生所诊治的成年(≥ 18 岁)患者进行回顾性审查,这些患者在同一次就诊时完成了 PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 和 PROMIS PF CAT 评分。对于多次就诊的患者,仅随机抽取一次就诊纳入分析。计算皮尔逊相关性以确定得分之间的线性关系。利用几种常用的等值模型(同一性、平均值、线性、等百分位数和圆弧法)将 PF 与 UE 联系起来。使用观察到的 PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 和使用模型生成的估计 PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 分数之间的类内相关性 (ICC) 以及均方根误差 (RMSE) 来评估模型的性能。选定的 "最佳 "模型使用期望均方差根值(REMSD)进一步评估其人群不变性(见结果):在纳入的 10,081 名患者中,平均年龄为 48.3 岁(SD = 17.0),54% 为女性(5,477/10,081)。UE CAT v1.2 和 PF CAT 的平均得分分别为 37 分(标准差 = 9.8)和 46 分(标准差 = 10.0)。得分之间有很强的相关性(Pearson correlation r = 0.70)。所有方法的性能均可接受(ICC ≥ 0.66 和 RMSE 结论):建立了用于分数之间双向转换的交叉表:证据等级:III。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Crosswalk between the PROMIS physical function CAT and PROMIS upper extremity CAT v1.2 in a hand surgery population.

Background: There is no gold standard patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in hand surgery. As a result, a diverse array of PROM instruments have been utilized across centers over time. Lack of score interchangeability limits the ability to compare or conglomerate scores when new instruments are introduced. Our aim was to develop a linkage for the PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 and PROMIS PF CAT scores and develop crosswalk tables for interconversion between these PROMs.

Methods: Retrospective review was conducted to identify adult (≥ 18y) patients seen by orthopaedic hand surgeons at a single academic tertiary care hospital who had completed PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 and PROMIS PF CAT score at the same visit. For those with multiple visits, only one randomly selected visit was included in the analyses. Pearson's correlation was calculated to determine the linear relationship between the scores. Linkage from PF to UE was performed utilizing several commonly utilized equating models (identity, mean, linear, equipercentile and circle-arc methods). The performance of the models was assessed using intraclass correlation (ICC) between observed PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 and estimated PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 scores generated using the model as well as Root Mean Square Error (RMSE). The model chosen as the 'best' was further assessed for population invariance using root expected mean squared difference (REMSD) where < 0.08 were considered good.

Results: Of 10,081 included patients, mean age was 48.3 (SD = 17.0), and 54% were female (5,477/10,081). Mean UE CAT v1.2 and PF CAT scores were 37 (SD = 9.8) and 46 (SD = 10.0), respectively. There was a strong correlation between the scores (Pearson correlation r = 0.70). All methods performed acceptably (ICC ≥ 0.66 and RMSE < = 7.52 for all). The equipercentile method had the highest ICC (ICC = 0.70 (95% CI 0.69-0.71)) while the mean and circle arc methods had the lowest RMSE. The circle arc method is the most reliable with the smallest standard error and has satisfactory population invariance across age group (REMSD 0.065) and sex (REMSD 0.036).

Conclusions: Crosswalk tables to be used for bidirectional conversion between scores were created.

Level of evidence: III.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes Health Professions-Health Information Management
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
120
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Australian private healthcare staff perspectives on patient reported experience measures (PREMs): a qualitative interview study. Coping difficulties after inpatient hospital treatment: validity and reliability of the German version of the post-discharge coping difficulty scale. Machine learning models including patient-reported outcome data in oncology: a systematic literature review and analysis of their reporting quality. Tests employed in the psychometric validation of the Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale (ITAS) in T2DM patients; a systematic review of the literature. Associations between symptom-based long COVID clusters and long-term quality of life, work and daily activities among individuals testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 at a national retail pharmacy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1