Literature DB >> 29200181

Estimating minimally important differences for the PROMIS pain interference scales: results from 3 randomized clinical trials.

Chen X Chen1, Kurt Kroenke2,3,4, Timothy E Stump5, Jacob Kean6,7, Janet S Carpenter1, Erin E Krebs8,9, Matthew J Bair2,3,4, Teresa M Damush2,3,4,10, Patrick O Monahan5.   

Abstract

Minimally important difference (MID) refers to the smallest meaningful difference that carries implications for patient care. Minimally important differences are necessary to help interpret patient-reported pain outcomes in research and clinical practice. The PROMIS pain interference scales were validated across diverse samples; however, more information about their MIDs could improve their interpretability. The purpose of this study was to estimate MIDs for 4 fixed-length PROMIS pain interference scales, including the 6-item Pain Short Form and the 4-, 6-, and 8-item pain interference scales used in the PROMIS profile instruments. Data were analyzed from 3 randomized controlled trials (N = 759). The 3 samples, respectively, consisted of patients with chronic low back pain (n = 261), chronic back pain or hip/knee osteoarthritis pain (n = 240), and a history of stroke (n = 258). For each sample, anchor- and distribution-based approaches were used to estimate MIDs. Standard error of measurement and effect sizes were used as distribution-based MID estimates. Anchor-based MID estimates were established by mapping PROMIS pain interference scores onto established anchor measures, including the Brief Pain Inventory, and retrospective and prospective global ratings of change. The distribution- and anchor-based MID estimates showed convergence. For the pain samples, MID estimates ranged from 2 to 3 T-score points. For the nonpain sample, MID estimates ranged from 3.5 to 4.5 T-score points. The MID estimates were comparable across the 4 fixed-length scales. These MIDs can be used to evaluate treatment effects in research and clinical care and to calculate estimates for powering clinical trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29200181      PMCID: PMC5860950          DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001121

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain        ISSN: 0304-3959            Impact factor:   7.926


  23 in total

1.  Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life.

Authors:  K W Wyrwich; W M Tierney; F D Wolinsky
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 2.  Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.

Authors:  Robert H Dworkin; Dennis C Turk; John T Farrar; Jennifer A Haythornthwaite; Mark P Jensen; Nathaniel P Katz; Robert D Kerns; Gerold Stucki; Robert R Allen; Nicholas Bellamy; Daniel B Carr; Julie Chandler; Penney Cowan; Raymond Dionne; Bradley S Galer; Sharon Hertz; Alejandro R Jadad; Lynn D Kramer; Donald C Manning; Susan Martin; Cynthia G McCormick; Michael P McDermott; Patrick McGrath; Steve Quessy; Bob A Rappaport; Wendye Robbins; James P Robinson; Margaret Rothman; Mike A Royal; Lee Simon; Joseph W Stauffer; Wendy Stein; Jane Tollett; Joachim Wernicke; James Witter
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 6.961

Review 3.  Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  Dennis Revicki; Ron D Hays; David Cella; Jeff Sloan
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2007-08-03       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 4.  Pragmatic characteristics of patient-reported outcome measures are important for use in clinical practice.

Authors:  Kurt Kroenke; Patrick O Monahan; Jacob Kean
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2015-04-11       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 5.  Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures.

Authors:  Gordon H Guyatt; David Osoba; Albert W Wu; Kathleen W Wyrwich; Geoffrey R Norman
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 7.616

6.  Responsiveness and minimally important difference for the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) 20-item physical functioning short form in a prospective observational study of rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  Ron D Hays; Karen L Spritzer; James F Fries; Eswar Krishnan
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2013-10-04       Impact factor: 19.103

Review 7.  Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory.

Authors:  C S Cleeland; K M Ryan
Journal:  Ann Acad Med Singapore       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 2.473

8.  Grading the severity of chronic pain.

Authors:  Michael Von Korff; Johan Ormel; Francis J Keefe; Samuel F Dworkin
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 6.961

9.  Minimal important difference thresholds and the standard error of measurement: is there a connection?

Authors:  Kathleen W Wyrwich
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 1.051

10.  Somatic symptoms in cancer patients trajectory over 12 months and impact on functional status and disability.

Authors:  Kurt Kroenke; Shelley A Johns; Dale Theobald; Jingwei Wu; Wanzhu Tu
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2012-09-01       Impact factor: 3.603

View more
  55 in total

1.  PROMIS and legacy measures compared in a supportive care intervention for breast cancer patients and caregivers: Experience from a randomized trial.

Authors:  Alla Sikorskii; David Victorson; Patrick O'Connor; Vered Hankin; Abolfazl Safikhani; Tracy Crane; Terry Badger; Gwen Wyatt
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2018-07-17       Impact factor: 3.894

2.  Association of Pain Centralization and Patient-Reported Pain in Active Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Authors:  Andrew C Heisler; Jing Song; Dorothy D Dunlop; Alyssa Wohlfahrt; Clifton O Bingham; Marcy B Bolster; Daniel J Clauw; Wendy Marder; Kristine Phillips; Tuhina Neogi; Yvonne C Lee
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2020-07-21       Impact factor: 4.794

3.  Socioeconomic disparities in health-related quality of life among colorectal cancer survivors.

Authors:  Jean A McDougall; Cindy K Blair; Charles L Wiggins; Michael B Goodwin; Vi K Chiu; Ashwani Rajput; Anita Y Kinney
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2019-05-20       Impact factor: 4.442

4.  Upper Extremity Function, Peer Relationships, and Pain Interference: Evaluating the Biopsychosocial Model in a Pediatric Hand Surgery Population Using PROMIS.

Authors:  Nikolas H Kazmers; Angela P Presson; Ziji Yu; Wyatt Walsh; Douglas T Hutchinson; Andrew R Tyser
Journal:  J Hand Surg Am       Date:  2020-07-05       Impact factor: 2.230

5.  Pain measurement in research and practice.

Authors:  Kurt Kroenke
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Minimally important differences and severity thresholds are estimated for the PROMIS depression scales from three randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  Kurt Kroenke; Timothy E Stump; Chen X Chen; Jacob Kean; Matthew J Bair; Teresa M Damush; Erin E Krebs; Patrick O Monahan
Journal:  J Affect Disord       Date:  2020-01-23       Impact factor: 4.839

7.  Minimal Clinically Important Difference After Carpal Tunnel Release Using the PROMIS Platform.

Authors:  Nikolas H Kazmers; Man Hung; Jerry Bounsanga; Maren W Voss; Abby Howenstein; Andrew R Tyser
Journal:  J Hand Surg Am       Date:  2019-05-06       Impact factor: 2.230

8.  Comparative Responsiveness of the PROMIS Pain Interference Short Forms With Legacy Pain Measures: Results From Three Randomized Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Chen X Chen; Kurt Kroenke; Timothy Stump; Jacob Kean; Erin E Krebs; Matthew J Bair; Teresa Damush; Patrick O Monahan
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2018-12-06       Impact factor: 5.820

9.  Effect of an Early Palliative Care Telehealth Intervention vs Usual Care on Patients With Heart Failure: The ENABLE CHF-PC Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Marie A Bakitas; J Nicholas Dionne-Odom; Deborah B Ejem; Rachel Wells; Andres Azuero; Macy L Stockdill; Konda Keebler; Elizabeth Sockwell; Sheri Tims; Sally Engler; Karen Steinhauser; Elizabeth Kvale; Raegan W Durant; Rodney O Tucker; Kathryn L Burgio; Jose Tallaj; Keith M Swetz; Salpy V Pamboukian
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 21.873

10.  PROMIS Physical and Emotional Health Scores Are Worse in Musculoskeletal Patients Presenting to Physiatrists than to Other Orthopedic Specialists.

Authors:  Abby L Cheng; Ryan Calfee; Graham Colditz; Heidi Prather
Journal:  PM R       Date:  2019-03-25       Impact factor: 2.298

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.