ArticleBMC medical research methodology2016
www.common-metrics.org: a web application to estimate scores from different patient-reported outcome measures on a common scale.
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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- The importance of transdiagnostic symptom level assessment to understanding prognosis for depressed adults: analysis of data from six randomised control trials.BMC medicine · 2021Trial
- [Assessment of patient-reported outcomes as an instrument for patient-centered care?]Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026Review
- Comparing Approaches to Link SF-36 PF-10 Scores to PROMIS Physical Function: A Validation Study in Three Clinical Samples.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Cross-Sectional Reference Data From 29 European Countries for 6 Frequently Used Depression Measures.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Towards Standardized Assessment of Outcomes in Back Pain-Validation of Linking Studies Between Disease-Specific and Generic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- A common metric for questionnaires on health anxiety in cancer patients.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Physical performance tasks were linked to the PROMIS physical function metric in patients undergoing hemodialysis.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2023Article
- Predicting prognosis for adults with depression using individual symptom data: a comparison of modelling approaches.Psychological medicine · 2023Article
- Systems Medicine Approach for Tinnitus with Comorbid Disorders.Nutrients · 2022Article
- Comparison of unweighted and item response theory-based weighted sum scoring for the Nine-Questions Depression-Rating Scale in the Northern Thai Dialect.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- Common measures or common metrics? A plea to harmonize measurement results.Clinical psychology & psychotherapy · 2022Article
- Article
- Validation and investigation of cross cultural equivalence of the Fremantle back awareness questionnaire - German version (FreBAQ-G).BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
- 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 · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.