ArticleJB & JS open access
Use of Computerized Adaptive Testing to Develop More Concise Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.
Article in JB & JS open access. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Measuring what matters: Evaluating quality of life instruments through the eyes of people with Parkinson's disease.Journal of Parkinson's disease · 2026Article
- Improving patient-reported outcome measure scoring in shoulder trials : comparing classical test theory, item response theory, and adaptive testing approaches.Bone & joint research · 2026Article
- Novel Interventions to Improve Adherence to Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy in Claudicants.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Patient-Reported Outcomes Program at Scale at a Cancer Center.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2025Article
- Validation of the cognitive section of the Penn computerized adaptive test for neurocognitive and clinical psychopathology assessment (CAT-CCNB).Brain and cognition · 2024Article
- Seamless Integration of Computer-Adaptive Patient Reported Outcomes into an Electronic Health Record.Applied clinical informatics · 2024Article
- Research Trends of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Orthopedic Medical Practices: A Bibliometric and Visualized Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Danish Linguistic Validation and Cultural Adaptation of the LIMB-Q Kids.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Nuts and Bolts of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Orthopaedics.The Journal of arthroplasty · 2023Review
- Key considerations to reduce or address respondent burden in patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection.Nature communications · 2022Review
- Computerized adaptive testing for the Oxford Hip, Knee, Shoulder, and Elbow scores : accurate measurement from fewer, and more patient-focused, questions.Bone & joint open · 2022Article
- Computerized adaptive testing of symptom severity: a registry-based study of 924 patients with trapeziometacarpal arthritis.The Journal of hand surgery, European volume · 2022Article
- Preoperative Evaluation of the Lower Extremity-SpecificArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2021Article
- A narrative review of current evidence supporting the implementation of electronic patient-reported outcome measures in the management of chronic diseases.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2021Article
- Efficiency and Accuracy of Computerized Adaptive Testing for the Oswestry Disability Index and Neck Disability Index.JB & JS open accessArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are essential tools that are used to assess health status and treatment outcomes in orthopaedic care. Use of PROMs can burden patients with lengthy and cumbersome questionnaires. Predictive models using machine learning known as
methodsA previously developed CAT model was applied to the responses of 19,523 patients who had completed a full VR-12 survey while presenting to 1 of 5 subspecialty orthopaedic clinics. This resulted in the calculation of both a full-survey and CAT-model physical component summary score (PCS) and mental component summary score (MCS). Several analyses compared the accuracy of the CAT model scores with that of the full scores by comparing the means and standard deviations, calculating a Pearson correlation coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficient, plotting the frequency distributions of the 2 score sets and the score differences, and performing a Bland-Altman assessment of scoring patterns.
resultsThe CAT model required 4 fewer questions to be answered by each subject (33% decrease in question burden). The mean PCS was 1.3 points lower in the CAT model than with the full VR-12 (41.5 ± 11.0 versus 42.8 ± 10.4), and the mean MCS was 0.3 point higher (57.3 ± 9.4 versus 57.0 ± 9.6). The Pearson correlation coefficients were 0.97 for PCS and 0.98 for MCS, and the intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.96 and 0.97, respectively. The frequency distribution of the CAT and full scores showed significant overlap for both the PCS and the MCS. The difference between the CAT and full scores was less than the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in >95% of cases for the PCS and MCS.
conclusionsThe application of CAT to the VR-12 survey demonstrated an ability to lessen the response burden for patients with a negligible effect on score integrity.
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.