OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF) scale compared to the validated Stroke Impact Scale-16 (SIS-16) in ischemic stroke patients seen in an ambulatory cerebrovascular clinic. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. PROMIS PF (computer adaptive testing version) and SIS-16 measures were electronically collected on 1,946 ischemic stroke patients seen in a cerebrovascular clinic using an electronic platform from September 12, 2012, to June 16, 2015. Distribution of scores was compared to assess ceiling and floor effects. Correlations with other commonly used functional status scales were performed to assess convergent validity. RESULTS: The SIS-16 and PROMIS PF had a 19.6% and <1% ceiling effect, respectively. Patients completed 16 SIS-16 items and a median of 4 (interquartile range 4-4) PROMIS PF items. Internal consistency of both SIS-16 and PROMIS PF was excellent. The SIS-16 had slightly but significantly higher correlations with the other functional scales than PROMIS PF. CONCLUSIONS: The use of PROMIS to obtain electronic patient-reported functional status in an ambulatory setting is feasible. PROMIS PF is an option for measurement of physical function in ischemic stroke patients. It had similar test characteristics as the SIS-16 but with lower patient burden and minimal ceiling effect.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF) scale compared to the validated Stroke Impact Scale-16 (SIS-16) in ischemic strokepatients seen in an ambulatory cerebrovascular clinic. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. PROMIS PF (computer adaptive testing version) and SIS-16 measures were electronically collected on 1,946 ischemic strokepatients seen in a cerebrovascular clinic using an electronic platform from September 12, 2012, to June 16, 2015. Distribution of scores was compared to assess ceiling and floor effects. Correlations with other commonly used functional status scales were performed to assess convergent validity. RESULTS: The SIS-16 and PROMIS PF had a 19.6% and <1% ceiling effect, respectively. Patients completed 16 SIS-16 items and a median of 4 (interquartile range 4-4) PROMIS PF items. Internal consistency of both SIS-16 and PROMIS PF was excellent. The SIS-16 had slightly but significantly higher correlations with the other functional scales than PROMIS PF. CONCLUSIONS: The use of PROMIS to obtain electronic patient-reported functional status in an ambulatory setting is feasible. PROMIS PF is an option for measurement of physical function in ischemic strokepatients. It had similar test characteristics as the SIS-16 but with lower patient burden and minimal ceiling effect.
Authors: Robert L Askew; Carmen E Capo-Lugo; Rajbeer Sangha; Andrew Naidech; Shyam Prabhakaran Journal: Value Health Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Shilpa Krishnan; Monique R Pappadis; Susan C Weller; Steve R Fisher; Catherine C Hay; Timothy A Reistetter Journal: Disabil Rehabil Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 3.033
Authors: Daniëlla M Oosterveer; Henk Arwert; Caroline B Terwee; Jan W Schoones; Thea P M Vliet Vlieland Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2022-05-14 Impact factor: 3.440
Authors: Henk J Arwert; Daniella M Oosterveer; Jan W Schoones; Caroline B Terwee; Thea P M Vliet Vlieland Journal: Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl Date: 2022-03-25
Authors: Irene L Katzan; Nicolas R Thompson; Harneet K Walia; Douglas E Moul; Nancy Foldvary-Schaefer Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Amar Dhand; Catherine E Lang; Douglas A Luke; Angela Kim; Karen Li; Liam McCafferty; Yi Mu; Bernard Rosner; Steven K Feske; Jin-Moo Lee Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2019-09-15 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Lidia M V R Moura; Eli Schwamm; Valdery Moura Junior; Michael P Seitz; John Hsu; Andrew J Cole; Lee H Schwamm Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-11-04 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Andrew M Naidech; Bradley Weaver; Matthew Maas; Thomas P Bleck; Stephen VanHaerents; Stephan U Schuele Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 9.296