ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2020
Development of a Novel Hematological Malignancy Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (HM-PRO): Content Validity.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Guidelines for the Use and Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Multiple Myeloma Clinical Trials.Cancers · 2023Guideline
- Systematic Review of the Effect of a One-Day Versus Seven-Day Recall Duration on Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs).The patient · 2023Pooled it
- Effects of nurse-led symptom management in chronic myeloid malignancies: a randomized trial.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Trial
- Unmet Needs and Their Impact on Quality of Life and Symptoms in Myelodysplastic Neoplasm Patients and Caregivers.Cancers · 2025Article
- Translation, cultural adaptation and validation of the Danish version of the haematological malignancy patient-reported outcome measure (HM-PRO).Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Article
- Assessment tools for patient-reported outcomes in multiple myeloma.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Review
- Understanding Quality of Life in Patients With Acute Leukemia, a Global Survey.Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2023Article
- [Application of patient-reported-outcome in myelodysplastic syndromes].Zhonghua xue ye xue za zhi = Zhonghua xueyexue zazhi · 2022Article
- Hematological Malignancy Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (HM-PRO): Construct Validity Study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Article
- Reliability of a Novel Hematological Malignancy Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure: HM-PRO.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Article
- Relationships Between Clinician-Patient Communication and the Quality of Life of Patients With Leukaemia: A Prospective Cross-Sectional Global Study.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe quality of life of patients at all stages of hematological malignancy is greatly affected by the disease and its treatment. There is a wide range of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) issues important to these patients. Any new instrument developed to measure HRQoL of such patients should be content valid, i.e., the items should be comprehensively relevant to the patients and their health condition. The aim of the present study was to examine content validity of a hematological malignancy specific patient reported outcome measure (HM-PRO) developed for use in routine clinical practice.
methodsFollowing literature review and semi-structured interviews, the generated themes and sub-themes were discussed to develop the prototype version of the HM-PRO. A 4-step approach was used for content validation: initial testing and cognitive interviewing; item rating; content validity panel meeting; final field testing and cognitive interviewing. Additional questions related to patients' perception of recall period and preferred sentence structure (i.e., question or statement) of the items were also asked during cognitive interviews.
resultsThe content analysis of 129 transcribed semi-structured interviews resulted in the prototype version of the instrument consisting of 58 items grouped into two parts: Part A (impact/HRQoL - 34 items) and Part B (signs and symptoms - 24 items). The initial testing showed intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of >0.8 for both Part A and Part B. Item rating for language clarity, completeness, relevance, and response scale by experts and patients showed content validity index for scales average >0.8 for both Part A and Part B, except 0.64 for relevance for Part A by the patient panel. The final testing of the revised version of the instrument showed the Cronbach's alpha value of 0.91 for Part A and 0.76 for Part B, suggesting high internal consistency, and ICC of 0.91 for Part A and 0.76 for Part B. The recall period of "today" for Part-A and "last 3 days" for Part-B were the patients' preferred "recall period." Furthermore, the patients expressed preference to the HM-PRO items as statements.
conclusionThe findings of this study confirm that the HM-PRO possesses a strong content validity, includes all the issues important to patients and is easy to read, understand and respond to spontaneously.
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.