Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27481311›Full record

Trial reportThe American journal of gastroenterology2016

Impact of National Institutes of Health Gastrointestinal PROMIS Measures in Clinical Practice: Results of a Multicenter Controlled Trial.

Christopher V Almario, William D Chey, Dinesh Khanna, Sasan Mosadeghi, Shahzad Ahmed, Elham Afghani, Cynthia Whitman, Garth Fuller, Mark Reid, Roger Bolus and 11 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter StudyPragmatic Clinical Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Translation and linguistic validation of 24 PROMIS item banks into French.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Patient and healthcare provider views on a patient-reported outcomes portal.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Christopher V AlmarioDivision of Gastroenterology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
William D CheyDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Dinesh KhannaDivision of Rheumatology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Sasan MosadeghiCedars-Sinai Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CS-CORE), Los Angeles, California, USA.
Shahzad AhmedCedars-Sinai Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CS-CORE), Los Angeles, California, USA.
Elham AfghaniDivision of Gastroenterology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Cynthia WhitmanDivision of Gastroenterology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Garth FullerDivision of Gastroenterology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Mark ReidDivision of Gastroenterology, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Roger BolusCedars-Sinai Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CS-CORE), Los Angeles, California, USA.
Buddy DennisUCLA Computing Technology Research Laboratory (CTRL), Los Angeles, California, USA.
Rey EncarnacionUCLA Computing Technology Research Laboratory (CTRL), Los Angeles, California, USA.
Bibiana MartinezDivision of Gastroenterology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Jennifer SoaresDivision of Gastroenterology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Rushaba ModiCedars-Sinai Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CS-CORE), Los Angeles, California, USA.
Nikhil AgarwalCedars-Sinai Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CS-CORE), Los Angeles, California, USA.
Aaron LeeCedars-Sinai Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CS-CORE), Los Angeles, California, USA.
Scott KubomotoCedars-Sinai Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CS-CORE), Los Angeles, California, USA.
Gobind SharmaCedars-Sinai Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CS-CORE), Los Angeles, California, USA.
Sally BolusCedars-Sinai Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CS-CORE), Los Angeles, California, USA.
Brennan M R SpiegelDivision of Gastroenterology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USVA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System · US

Funding

Development and Initial Validation of PROMIS GI Distress ScaleU01AR057936 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI KHANNA, DINESH, SPIEGEL, BRENNAN · 2009 to 2013
$2.2M
NIAMS NIH HHS U01 AR057936NIDDK NIH HHS L30 DK106734
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe National Institutes of Health (NIH) created the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) to allow efficient, online measurement of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), but it remains untested whether PROMIS improves outcomes. Here, we aimed to compare the impact of gastrointestinal (GI) PROMIS measures vs. usual care on patient outcomes.

methodsWe performed a pragmatic clinical trial with an off-on study design alternating weekly between intervention (GI PROMIS) and control arms at one Veterans Affairs and three university-affiliated specialty clinics. Adults with GI symptoms were eligible. Intervention patients completed GI PROMIS symptom questionnaires on an e-portal 1 week before their visit; PROs were available for review by patients and their providers before and during the clinic visit. Usual care patients were managed according to customary practices. Our primary outcome was patient satisfaction as determined by the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included provider interpersonal skills (Doctors' Interpersonal Skills Questionnaire (DISQ)) and shared decision-making (9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9)).

resultsThere were 217 and 154 patients in the GI PROMIS and control arms, respectively. Patient satisfaction was similar between groups (P>0.05). Intervention patients had similar assessments of their providers' interpersonal skills (DISQ 89.4±11.7 vs. 89.8±16.0, P=0.79) and shared decision-making (SDM-Q-9 79.3±12.4 vs. 79.0±22.0, P=0.85) vs. CONTROLS:

conclusionsThis is the first controlled trial examining the impact of NIH PROMIS in clinical practice. One-time use of GI PROMIS did not improve patient satisfaction or assessment of provider interpersonal skills and shared decision-making. Future studies examining how to optimize PROs in clinical practice are encouraged before widespread adoption.

Indexed as

Decision MakingGastroenterologyGastrointestinal DiseasesPatient PortalsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPatient SatisfactionPhysician-Patient RelationsAdultAgedFemaleHumansInformation SystemsInternetMaleMiddle AgedNational Institutes of Health (U.S.)

Identifiers

PMID27481311
PMCPMC5097031
OpenAlexW2484667143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.