0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Minimally important differences were estimated for six Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Cancer scales in advanced-stage cancer patients

      , , ,
      Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          We combined anchor- and distribution-based methods to establish minimally important differences (MIDs) for six Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-Cancer scales in advanced-stage cancer patients. Participants completed 6 PROMIS-Cancer scales and 23 anchor measures at an initial (n=101) assessment and a follow-up (n=88) assessment 6-12 weeks later. Three a priori criteria were used to identify usable cross-sectional and longitudinal anchor-based MID estimates. The mean standard error of measurement was also computed for each scale. The focus of the analysis was on item response theory-based MIDs estimated on a T-score scale. Raw score MIDs were estimated for comparison purposes. Many cross-sectional (64%) and longitudinal (73%) T-score anchor-based MID estimates were excluded because they did not meet a priori criteria. The following are the recommended T-score MID ranges: 17-item Fatigue (2.5-4.5), 7-item Fatigue (3.0-5.0), 10-item Pain Interference (4.0-6.0), 10-item Physical Functioning (4.0-6.0), 9-item Emotional Distress-Anxiety (3.0-4.5), and 10-item Emotional Distress-Depression (3.0-4.5). Effect sizes corresponding to these MIDs averaged between 0.40 and 0.63. This study is the first to address MIDs for PROMIS measures. Studies are currently being conducted to confirm these MIDs in other patient populations and to determine whether these MIDs vary by patients' level of functioning. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
          Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
          Elsevier BV
          08954356
          May 2011
          May 2011
          : 64
          : 5
          : 507-516
          Article
          10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.11.018
          3076200
          21447427
          043a4a5d-c6cb-4b65-916f-595c89cddd06
          © 2011

          https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article