Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32503548›Full record

ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2020

Psychometric properties of a short version of Lee Fatigue Scale used as a generic PROM in persons with stroke or osteoarthritis: assessment using a Rasch analysis approach.

Line Kildal Bragstad, Anners Lerdal, Caryl L Gay, Marit Kirkevold, Kathryn A Lee, Maren Falch Lindberg, Ingrid Johansen Skogestad, Ellen Gabrielsen Hjelle, Unni Sveen, Anders Kottorp

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02338869 (Psycho-Social Well Being Following Stroke - A Randomized Controlled Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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.

NCT02338869 nacompletednot on this map

Psycho-Social Well Being Following Stroke - A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of OsloRan2014 to 2018Enrolled322ConditionsStrokeArmsDialogue-based psychosocial rehabilitation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Line Kildal BragstadDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, P.O Box 4956, Ullevaal, Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway. l.k.bragstad@medisin.uio.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9645-3770
Anners LerdalDepartment of Nursing Science, University of Oslo, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Health and Society, P.O. Box. 1130, Blindern, N-0318, Oslo, Norway.
Caryl L GayDepartment for Patient Safety and Research, Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital, P.O. Box 04970, Nydalen, N-0440, Oslo, Norway.
Marit KirkevoldDepartment of Nursing Science and Research Center for Habilitation and Rehabilitation Services and Models (CHARM), University of Oslo, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Health and Society, P.O. Box 1130, Blindern, N-0318, Oslo, Norway.
Kathryn A LeeDepartment of Family Health Care Nursing, University of California, San Francisco, 2 Koret Way, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Maren Falch LindbergDepartment of Nursing Science, University of Oslo, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Health and Society, P.O. Box. 1130, Blindern, N-0318, Oslo, Norway.
Ingrid Johansen SkogestadDepartment for Medicine, Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital, P.O. Box 04970, Nydalen, N-0440, Oslo, Norway.
Ellen Gabrielsen HjelleDepartment of Nursing Science and Research Center for Habilitation and Rehabilitation Services and Models (CHARM), University of Oslo, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Health and Society, P.O. Box 1130, Blindern, N-0318, Oslo, Norway.
Unni SveenDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, P.O Box 4956, Ullevaal, Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway.
Anders KottorpFaculty of Health and Society, Malmö University, 205 06, Malmö, Sweden.
University of Oslo · NOOslo University Hospital · NOUniversity of California, San Francisco · USLovisenberg Diakonale Høgskole · NOMalmö University · SE

Funding

Extra Foundation (NO) 2015/FO13753FP7 People: Marie-Curie Actions (FP7-PEOPLE-2013-COFUND) 609020-Scientia FellowsHelse Sør-Øst RHF 2018060Helse Sør-Øst RHF (NO) 2013086Lovisenberg Diakonale Sykehus (NO) -National Association for Public Health (NO) -Norges Forskningsråd 287816Norsk Sykepleierforbund -US Norway Fullbright Foundation -
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFatigue is a common symptom associated with a wide range of diseases and needs to be more thoroughly studied. To minimise patient burden and to enhance response rates in research studies, patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) need to be as short as possible, without sacrificing reliability and validity. It is also important to have a generic measure that can be used for comparisons across different patient populations. Thus, the aim of this secondary analysis was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Norwegian 5-item version of the Lee Fatigue Scale (LFS) in two distinct patient populations.

methodsThe sample was obtained from two different Norwegian studies and included patients 4-6 weeks after stroke (n = 322) and patients with osteoarthritis on a waiting list for total knee arthroplasty (n = 203). Fatigue severity was rated by five items from the Norwegian version of the LFS, rating each item on a numeric rating scale from 1 to 10. Rasch analysis was used to evaluate the psychometric properties of the 5-item scale across the two patient samples.

resultsThree of the five LFS items ("tired", "fatigued" and "worn out") showed acceptable internal scale validity as they met the set criterion for goodness-of-fit after removal of two items with unacceptable goodness-of-fit to the Rasch model. The 3-item LFS explained 81.6% of the variance, demonstrated acceptable unidimensionality, could separate the fatigue responses into three distinct severity groups and had no differential functioning with regard to disease group. The 3-item version of the LFS had a higher separation index and better internal consistency reliability than the 5-item version.

conclusionsA 3-item version of the LFS demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties in two distinct samples of patients, suggesting it may be useful as a brief generic measure of fatigue severity.

trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov: NCT02338869; registered 10/04/2014 (stroke study).

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFatigueFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorwayOsteoarthritis, KneePsychometricsQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsSeverity of Illness IndexStrokeFatigueHealth-related quality of lifeMeasurementOsteoarthritisPsychometricsRasch analysisStrokeTotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID32503548
PMCPMC7275526
OpenAlexW3033272542

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.