ArticleClinical therapeutics2014
Correspondence between the RAND-Negative Impact of Asthma on Quality of Life item bank and the Marks Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire.
Article in Clinical therapeutics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A protocol for chronic pain outcome measurement enhancement by linking PROMIS-29 scale to legacy measures and improving chronic pain stratification.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn many research and clinical settings in which patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are used, it is often desirable to link scores across disparate measures or to use scores from 1 measure to describe scores on a separate measure. However, PRO measures are scored by using a variety of metrics, making such comparisons difficult.
objectiveThe objective of this article was to provide an example of how to transform scores across disparate measures (the Marks Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire [AQLQ-Marks] and the newly developed RAND-Negative Impact of Asthma on Quality of Life item bank [RAND-IAQL-Bank]) by using an item response theory (IRT)-based linking method.
methodsOur sample of adults with asthma (N = 2032) completed 2 measures of asthma-specific quality of life: the AQLQ-Marks and the RAND-IAQL-Bank. We use IRT-based co-calibration of the 2 measures to provide a linkage, or a common metric, between the 2 measures. Co-calibration refers to the process of using IRT to estimate item parameters that describe the responses to the scales' items according to a common metric; in this case, a normal distribution transformed to a T scale with a mean of 50 and an SD of 10.
resultsRespondents had an average age of 43 (15), were 60% female, and predominantly non-Hispanic White (56%), with 19% African American, 14% Hispanic, and 11% Asian. Most had at least some college education (83%), and 90% had experienced an asthma attack during the last 12 months. Our results indicate that the AQLQ-Marks and RAND-IAQL-Bank scales measured highly similar constructs and were sufficiently unidimensional for IRT co-calibration. Once linked, scores from the 2 measures were invariant across subgroups. A crosswalk is provided that allows researchers and clinicians using AQLQ-Marks to crosswalk to the RAND-IAQL toolkit.
conclusionsThe ability to translate scores from the RAND-IAQL toolkit to other "legacy" (ie, commonly used) measures increases the value of the new toolkit, aids in interpretation, and will hopefully facilitate adoption by asthma researchers and clinicians. More generally, the techniques we illustrate can be applied to other newly developed or existing measures in the PRO research field to obtain crosswalks with widely used traditional legacy instruments.
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.