Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29749667›Full record

ArticlePhysiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy2018

The Brighton musculoskeletal Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (BmPROM): An assessment of validity, reliability, and responsiveness.

Elizabeth Bryant, Shemane Murtagh, Laura Finucane, Carol McCrum, Christopher Mercer, Toby Smith, Guy Canby, David A Rowe, Ann P Moore

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. The Brighton musculoskeletal Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (BmPROM): An assessment of validity, reliability, and responsiveness.Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 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

9 authors.

Elizabeth BryantCentre for Health Research, University of Brighton, Eastbourne, East Sussex, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7027-3237
Shemane MurtaghCentre for Health Research, University of Brighton, Eastbourne, East Sussex, UK.
Laura FinucanePhysiotherapy Department, First Community Health and Care CIC, Redhill, Surrey, UK.
Carol McCrumEast Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust, Eastbourne District General Hospital, Eastbourne, UK.
Christopher MercerWorthing Hospital (Physiotherapy Department), Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Worthing, UK.
Toby SmithPrincess Royal Hospital (Physiotherapy Department), Brighton and Sussex University Hospital NHS Trust, Haywards Heath, UK.
Guy CanbyUniversity of Brighton, School of Health Sciences, Eastbourne, UK.
David A RoweUniversity of Strathclyde, School of Psychological Sciences, Glasgow, UK.
Ann P MooreCentre for Health Research, University of Brighton, Eastbourne, East Sussex, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn response for the need of a freely available, stand-alone, validated outcome measure for use within musculoskeletal (MSK) physiotherapy practice, sensitive enough to measure clinical effectiveness, we developed an MSK patient reported outcome measure.

objectivesThis study examined the validity and reliability of the newly developed Brighton musculoskeletal Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (BmPROM) within physiotherapy outpatient settings.

methodsTwo hundred twenty-four patients attending physiotherapy outpatient departments in South East England with an MSK condition participated in this study. The BmPROM was assessed for user friendliness (rated feedback, N = 224), reliability (internal consistency and test-retest reliability, n = 42), validity (internal and external construct validity, N = 224), and responsiveness (internal, n = 25).

resultsExploratory factor analysis indicated that a two-factor model provides a good fit to the data. Factors were representative of "Functionality" and "Wellbeing". Correlations observed between the BmPROM and SF-36 domains provided evidence of convergent validity. Reliability results indicated that both subscales were internally consistent with alphas above the acceptable limits for both "Functionality" (α = .85, 95% CI [.81, .88]) and 'Wellbeing' (α = .80, 95% CI [.75, .84]). Test-retest analyses (n = 42) demonstrated a high degree of reliability between "Functionality" (ICC = .84; 95% CI [.72, .91]) and "Wellbeing" scores (ICC = .84; 95% CI [.72, .91]). Further examination of test-retest reliability through the Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated that the difference between "Functionality" and "Wellbeing" test scores did not vary as a function of absolute test score. Large treatment effect sizes were found for both subscales (Functionality d = 1.10; Wellbeing 1.03).

conclusionThe BmPROM is a reliable and valid outcome measure for use in evaluating physiotherapy treatment of MSK conditions.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresPhysical Therapy ModalitiesSurveys and QuestionnairesAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overEnglandFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMusculoskeletal DiseasesReproducibility of ResultsTreatment Outcomemusculoskeletal disorderspatient-centred outcome measurephysiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID29749667
PMCPMC6055852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.