Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27760525›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2016

www.common-metrics.org: a web application to estimate scores from different patient-reported outcome measures on a common scale.

H Felix Fischer, Matthias Rose

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. [Assessment of patient-reported outcomes as an instrument for patient-centered care?]Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Validity of the PROMIS depression and anxiety common metrics in an online sample of Australian adults.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

H Felix FischerDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine, Clinic for Internal Medicine, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. felix.fischer@charite.de.
Matthias RoseDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine, Clinic for Internal Medicine, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecently, a growing number of Item-Response Theory (IRT) models has been published, which allow estimation of a common latent variable from data derived by different Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs). When using data from different PROs, direct estimation of the latent variable has some advantages over the use of sum score conversion tables. It requires substantial proficiency in the field of psychometrics to fit such models using contemporary IRT software. We developed a web application ( http://www.common-metrics.org ), which allows estimation of latent variable scores more easily using IRT models calibrating different measures on instrument independent scales.

resultsCurrently, the application allows estimation using six different IRT models for Depression, Anxiety, and Physical Function. Based on published item parameters, users of the application can directly estimate latent trait estimates using expected a posteriori (EAP) for sum scores as well as for specific response patterns, Bayes modal (MAP), Weighted likelihood estimation (WLE) and Maximum likelihood (ML) methods and under three different prior distributions. The obtained estimates can be downloaded and analyzed using standard statistical software.

conclusionsThis application enhances the usability of IRT modeling for researchers by allowing comparison of the latent trait estimates over different PROs, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire Depression (PHQ-9) and Anxiety (GAD-7) scales, the Center of Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), PROMIS Anxiety and Depression Short Forms and others. Advantages of this approach include comparability of data derived with different measures and tolerance against missing values. The validity of the underlying models needs to be investigated in the future.

Indexed as

InternetPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresSoftwareAnxiety DisordersComputational BiologyDepressionDepressive DisorderHumansPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsAnxietyDepressionItem-Response TheoryMeasurementPatient Reported OutcomesPhysical function

Identifiers

PMID27760525
PMCPMC5069858

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.