Literature DB >> 30529442

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

Chen X Chen1, Kurt Kroenke2, Timothy Stump3, Jacob Kean4, Erin E Krebs5, Matthew J Bair2, Teresa Damush6, Patrick O Monahan3.   

Abstract

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Interference (PROMIS-PI) scales are reliable and publicly accessible; however, little is known about how responsive they are to detect change in clinical trials and how their responsiveness compares with legacy measures. The study purpose was to evaluate responsiveness for the PROMIS-PI scales and to compare their responsiveness with legacy pain measures. We used data from 3 clinical trials totaling 759 participants. The clinical trials included patients with chronic low back pain (n = 261), chronic back or osteoarthritis pain (n = 240), and a history of stroke (n = 258). At both baseline and follow-up, participants completed PROMIS-PI scales and legacy pain measures (Brief Pain Inventory Interference scale; Pain, Enjoyment, General Activity scale; 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) Bodily Pain scale; and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire). We measured global ratings of pain change, both prospectively and retrospectively, as anchors to identify patients as improved, unchanged, or worsened. Responsiveness was assessed with standardized response means, statistical tests comparing change groups, and area under the curve analysis. The PROMIS-PI scales had largely comparable responsiveness with the Brief Pain Inventory Interference and Pain, Enjoyment, General Activity scales. The 4 PROMIS-PI short forms had comparable responsiveness. For all pain questionnaires, responsiveness varied based on the study population and whether pain improved or worsened. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents 1) how responsive the PROMIS-PI scales were to detect change over time in the context of 3 clinical trials and 2) how their responsiveness compared with legacy pain measures. The findings can help researchers and clinicians choose between different patient-reported pain outcome measures.
Copyright © 2019 the American Pain Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  PROMIS; Pain interference; pain measurement; patient-reported outcome measures; responsiveness

Year:  2018        PMID: 30529442      PMCID: PMC6551313          DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2018.11.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pain        ISSN: 1526-5900            Impact factor:   5.820


  32 in total

Review 1.  The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire.

Authors:  M Roland; J Fairbank
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

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

4.  The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Donald L Patrick; Jordi Alonso; Paul W Stratford; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  The validity of prospective and retrospective global change criterion measures.

Authors:  John Schmitt; Richard P Di Fabio
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.966

6.  A prospective global measure, the Punum Ladder, provides more valid assessments of quality of life than a retrospective transition measure.

Authors:  Kenneth E Fletcher; Cynthia T French; Richard S Irwin; Kristin M Corapi; Geoffrey R Norman
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2010-03-19       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  Validity of the Sickness Impact Profile Roland scale as a measure of dysfunction in chronic pain patients.

Authors:  Mark P Jensen; Susan E Strom; Judith A Turner; Joan M Romano
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 6.961

8.  The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years.

Authors:  David Cella; Susan Yount; Nan Rothrock; Richard Gershon; Karon Cook; Bryce Reeve; Deborah Ader; James F Fries; Bonnie Bruce; Mattias Rose
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.

Authors:  Robert H Dworkin; Dennis C Turk; Kathleen W Wyrwich; Dorcas Beaton; Charles S Cleeland; John T Farrar; Jennifer A Haythornthwaite; Mark P Jensen; Robert D Kerns; Deborah N Ader; Nancy Brandenburg; Laurie B Burke; David Cella; Julie Chandler; Penny Cowan; Rozalina Dimitrova; Raymond Dionne; Sharon Hertz; Alejandro R Jadad; Nathaniel P Katz; Henrik Kehlet; Lynn D Kramer; Donald C Manning; Cynthia McCormick; Michael P McDermott; Henry J McQuay; Sanjay Patel; Linda Porter; Steve Quessy; Bob A Rappaport; Christine Rauschkolb; Dennis A Revicki; Margaret Rothman; Kenneth E Schmader; Brett R Stacey; Joseph W Stauffer; Thorsten von Stein; Richard E White; James Witter; Stojan Zavisic
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2007-12-11       Impact factor: 5.820

10.  Development and initial validation of the PEG, a three-item scale assessing pain intensity and interference.

Authors:  Erin E Krebs; Karl A Lorenz; Matthew J Bair; Teresa M Damush; Jingwei Wu; Jason M Sutherland; Steven M Asch; Kurt Kroenke
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2009-05-06       Impact factor: 5.128

View more
  15 in total

1.  A Sequential Multiple-Assignment Randomized Trial (SMART) for Stepped Care Management of Low Back Pain in the Military Health System: A Trial Protocol.

Authors:  Julie M Fritz; Daniel I Rhon; Deydre S Teyhen; Jacob Kean; Megan E Vanneman; Eric L Garland; Ian E Lee; Richard E Thorp; Tom H Greene
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2020-12-12       Impact factor: 3.750

Review 2.  Measurement properties and interpretability of the PROMIS item banks in stroke patients: a systematic review.

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

Review 3.  Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Measures in Clinical Research in Patients With Stroke: A Systematic Literature Review.

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

4.  Sensory Versus Affective Pain Descriptors Predicting Functional Versus Psychosocial Disability.

Authors:  Ephrem Fernandez; Wenbo Wu; Eric C Shattuck; Krishna Kolaparthi
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2022-04-21       Impact factor: 5.383

5.  The use of PROMIS patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to inform light chain (AL) amyloid disease severity at diagnosis.

Authors:  Anita D'Souza; Brooke E Magnus; Judith Myers; Angela Dispenzieri; Kathryn E Flynn
Journal:  Amyloid       Date:  2020-01-23       Impact factor: 7.141

6.  Graded chronic pain scale revised: mild, bothersome, and high-impact chronic pain.

Authors:  Michael Von Korff; Lynn L DeBar; Erin E Krebs; Robert D Kerns; Richard A Deyo; Francis J Keefe
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 7.926

7.  Comparison of patient-reported outcomes measurement information system and legacy instruments in multiple domains among older veterans with chronic back pain.

Authors:  Rabih Nayfe; Matthieu Chansard; Linda S Hynan; Eric M Mortensen; Thiru Annaswamy; Liana Fraenkel; Una E Makris
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-09-08       Impact factor: 2.362

8.  Changes in patient-reported outcomes in light chain amyloidosis in the first year after diagnosis and relationship to NT-proBNP change.

Authors:  Anita D'Souza; Ruta Brazauskas; Angela Dispenzieri; Julie Panepinto; Kathryn E Flynn
Journal:  Blood Cancer J       Date:  2021-02-01       Impact factor: 11.037

Review 9.  Clinical outcome assessment in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments.

Authors:  Kushang V Patel; Dagmar Amtmann; Mark P Jensen; Shannon M Smith; Christin Veasley; Dennis C Turk
Journal:  Pain Rep       Date:  2021-01-21

10.  Responsiveness of PROMIS and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) Depression Scales in three clinical trials.

Authors:  Kurt Kroenke; Timothy E Stump; Chen X Chen; Jacob Kean; Teresa M Damush; Matthew J Bair; Erin E Krebs; Patrick O Monahan
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 3.186

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.