ArticleExpert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research2013
Introduction to patient-reported outcome item banks: issues in minority aging research.
Article in Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving the Delivery of Function-Directed Care During Acute Hospitalizations: Methods to Develop and Validate the Functional Assessment in Acute Care Multidimensional Computerized Adaptive Test (FAMCAT).Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2021Article
- Analytic Training for Junior Investigators in Minority Aging Research: The Michigan Model.The Gerontologist · 2020Article
- Measuring global functioning in older adults with cognitive impairments using the Rasch model.BMC geriatrics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pre-Conference Workshop in conjunction with the Annual Meeting of the Geriatrics Society of America San Diego Convention Center, San Diego, CA, USA, 14 November 2012 In 2004, the NIH awarded contracts to initiate the development of high-quality psychological and neuropsychological outcome measures for the improved assessment of health-related outcomes. The workshop introduced these measurement development initiatives, the measures created and the NIH-supported resource (Assessment Center) for internet or tablet-based test administration and scoring. Presentations covered item response theory and assessment of test bias, construction of item banks and computerized adaptive testing, and the different ways in which qualitative analyses contribute to the definition of construct domains and the refinement of outcome constructs. The panel discussion included questions about representativeness of samples and the assessment of cultural bias.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.