Vivek Nagaraja1,2, Constance Mara3, Puja P Khanna1,4, Rajaie Namas1, Amber Young1,2, David A Fox1, Timothy Laing1, William J McCune1, Carol Dodge1, Debra Rizzo1, Maha Almackenzie5,6, Dinesh Khanna7,8. 1. Division of Rheumatology, University of Michigan, 300 North Ingalls Building, Room 7C27, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-5422, USA. 2. University of Michigan Scleroderma Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. Behavioral Medicine and Clinical Psychology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, 3333 Burnet Ave. MLC 7039, Cincinnati, OH, 45229, USA. 4. Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA. 6. Divison of Rheumatology, University of Toledo, 3000 Arlington Ave, mailstop 1186, Toledo, OH, 43614, USA. 7. Division of Rheumatology, University of Michigan, 300 North Ingalls Building, Room 7C27, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-5422, USA. khannad@med.umich.edu. 8. University of Michigan Scleroderma Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. khannad@med.umich.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Different patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are used for rheumatic diseases (RD). The aims of this study are-(1) Identify PROMIS® domains most relevant to care of patients with RD, (2) Collect T-Score metrics in patients with RD, and (3) Identify clinically meaningful cut-points for these domains. METHODS: A convenience sample of RD patients was recruited consecutively during clinic visits, and asked to complete computer-adaptive tests on thirteen Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) instruments. Based on discussion with clinical providers, four measures were chosen to be relevant and actionable (from rheumatologists' perspective) in RD patients. Data from RD patients were used to develop clinical vignettes across a range of symptom severity. Vignettes were created based on most likely item responses at different levels on the T-score metric (mean = 50; SD = 10) and anchored at 5-point intervals (0.5 SDs). Patients with RD (N = 9) and clinical providers (N = 10) participated as expert panelists in separate one-day meetings using a modified educational standard setting method. RESULTS: Four domains (physical function, pain interferences, sleep disturbance, depression) that are actionable at the point-of-care were selected. For all domains, patients endorsed cut-points at lower levels of impairment than providers by 0.5 to 1 SD (e.g., severe impairment in physical function was defined as a T-score of 35 by patients and 25 by providers). CONCLUSIONS: We used a modified educational method to estimate clinically relevant cut-points to classify severity for PROMIS measures This allows for meaningful interpretation of PROMIS® measures in a clinical setting of RD population.
PURPOSE: Different patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are used for rheumatic diseases (RD). The aims of this study are-(1) Identify PROMIS® domains most relevant to care of patients with RD, (2) Collect T-Score metrics in patients with RD, and (3) Identify clinically meaningful cut-points for these domains. METHODS: A convenience sample of RD patients was recruited consecutively during clinic visits, and asked to complete computer-adaptive tests on thirteen Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) instruments. Based on discussion with clinical providers, four measures were chosen to be relevant and actionable (from rheumatologists' perspective) in RD patients. Data from RD patients were used to develop clinical vignettes across a range of symptom severity. Vignettes were created based on most likely item responses at different levels on the T-score metric (mean = 50; SD = 10) and anchored at 5-point intervals (0.5 SDs). Patients with RD (N = 9) and clinical providers (N = 10) participated as expert panelists in separate one-day meetings using a modified educational standard setting method. RESULTS: Four domains (physical function, pain interferences, sleep disturbance, depression) that are actionable at the point-of-care were selected. For all domains, patients endorsed cut-points at lower levels of impairment than providers by 0.5 to 1 SD (e.g., severe impairment in physical function was defined as a T-score of 35 by patients and 25 by providers). CONCLUSIONS: We used a modified educational method to estimate clinically relevant cut-points to classify severity for PROMIS measures This allows for meaningful interpretation of PROMIS® measures in a clinical setting of RD population.
Authors: Bryce B Reeve; Ron D Hays; Jakob B Bjorner; Karon F Cook; Paul K Crane; Jeanne A Teresi; David Thissen; Dennis A Revicki; David J Weiss; Ronald K Hambleton; Honghu Liu; Richard Gershon; Steven P Reise; Jin-shei Lai; David Cella Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Onkar V Khullar; Mohammed H Rajaei; Seth D Force; Jose N Binongo; Yi Lasanajak; Scott Robertson; Allan Pickens; Manu S Sancheti; Joseph Lipscomb; Theresa W Gillespie; Felix G Fernandez Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2017-05-05 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: M A Mahieu; G E Ahn; J S Chmiel; D D Dunlop; I B Helenowski; P Semanik; J Song; S Yount; R W Chang; R Ramsey-Goldman Journal: Lupus Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 2.911
Authors: Neil Basu; Gareth T Jones; Nick Fluck; Alan G MacDonald; Dong Pang; Paula Dospinescu; David M Reid; Gary J Macfarlane Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2010-04-17 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: Esi M Morgan; Constance A Mara; Bin Huang; Kimberly Barnett; Adam C Carle; Jennifer E Farrell; Karon F Cook Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-12-02 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: David Cella; Seung Choi; Sofia Garcia; Karon F Cook; Sarah Rosenbloom; Jin-Shei Lai; Donna Surges Tatum; Richard Gershon Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-06-18 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jonathan P Troost; Debbie S Gipson; Noelle E Carlozzi; Bryce B Reeve; Patrick H Nachman; Rasheed Gbadegesin; Jichuan Wang; Frank Modersitzki; Susan Massengill; John D Mahan; Yang Liu; Howard Trachtman; Emily G Herreshoff; Darren A DeWalt; David T Selewski Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Nan E Rothrock; Karon F Cook; Mary O'Connor; David Cella; Ashley Wilder Smith; Susan E Yount Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-08-13 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Nathaniel W Jenkins; James M Parrish; Conor P Lynch; Elliot D K Cha; Caroline N Jadczak; Shruthi Mohan; Cara E Geoghegan; Kern Singh Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2021-12
Authors: Brittany R Lapin; Ryan Honomichl; Nicolas Thompson; Susannah Rose; Abby Abelson; Chad Deal; Irene L Katzan Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-11-10 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Noelle E Carlozzi; Phillip A Ianni; David S Tulsky; Tracey A Brickell; Rael T Lange; Louis M French; David Cella; Michael A Kallen; Jennifer A Miner; Anna L Kratz Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2018-06-20 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Mary D Slavin; Colleen M Ryan; Jeffrey C Schneider; Amy Acton; Flor Amaya; Cayla Saret; Emily Ohrtman; Audrey Wolfe; Pengsheng Ni; Lewis E Kazis Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2021-02-03 Impact factor: 1.845
Authors: Angelle M Sander; Nicholas R Boileau; Robin A Hanks; David S Tulsky; Noelle E Carlozzi Journal: J Head Trauma Rehabil Date: 2020 Jan/Feb Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Erin Koffel; Allyson M Kats; Kurt Kroenke; Matthew J Bair; Amy Gravely; Beth DeRonne; Melvin T Donaldson; Elizabeth S Goldsmith; Siamak Noorbaloochi; Erin E Krebs Journal: Pain Med Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 3.750