Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33934444›Full record

ArticleNeurogastroenterology and motility2021

Psychometric evaluation of an experience sampling method-based patient-reported outcome measure in functional dyspepsia.

Tim Klaassen, Fabienne G M Smeets, Lisa Vork, Jan Tack, Nicholas J Talley, Magnus Simrén, Qasim Aziz, Alexander C Ford, Joanna W Kruimel, José M Conchillo and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Neurogastroenterology and motility, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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.

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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Gastric emptying rate and relevance for symptoms.United European gastroenterology journal · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  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

13 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Tim KlaassenDivision of Gastroenterology-Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1519-4026
Fabienne G M SmeetsDivision of Gastroenterology-Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1761-8312
Lisa VorkDivision of Gastroenterology-Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7316-3191
Jan TackDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Translational Research Centre for Gastrointestinal Disorders (TARGID), University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-3206-6704
Nicholas J TalleyFaculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2537-3092
Magnus SimrénDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-1155-1313
Qasim AzizCentre for Neuroscience and Trauma, Wingate Institute of Neurogastroenterology, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine & Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2718-2065
Alexander C FordLeeds Gastroenterology Institute, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6371-4359
Joanna W KruimelDivision of Gastroenterology-Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7102-1720
José M ConchilloDivision of Gastroenterology-Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0659-0358
Carsten LeueDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1553-5705
Adrian A M MascleeDivision of Gastroenterology-Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5819-0116
Daniel KeszthelyiDivision of Gastroenterology-Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9856-9980
Maastricht University Medical Centre · NLKU Leuven · BEQueen Mary University of London · GBUniversity of Gothenburg · SEUniversity of Leeds · GBUniversity of Newcastle Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDue to important biases, conventional end-of-day and end-of-week assessment methods of gastrointestinal symptoms in functional dyspepsia (FD) are considered suboptimal. Real-time symptom assessment based on the experience sampling method (ESM) could be a more accurate measurement method. This study aimed to evaluate validity and reliability of an ESM-based patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for symptom assessment in FD.

methodsThirty-five patients with FD (25 female, mean age 44.7 years) completed the ESM-based PROM (a maximum of 10 random moments per day) and an end-of-day symptom diary for 7 consecutive days. On day 7, end-of-week questionnaires were completed including the Nepean Dyspepsia Index (NDI) and Patient Assessment of Gastrointestinal Symptom Severity Index (PAGI-SYM). KEY

resultsExperience sampling method and corresponding end-of-day scores for gastrointestinal symptoms were significantly associated (ICCs range 0.770-0.917). However, end-of-day scores were significantly higher (Δ0.329-1.031) than mean ESM scores (p < 0.05). Comparing ESM with NDI and PAGI-SYM scores, correlations were weaker (Pearson's r range 0.467-0.846). Cronbach's α coefficient was good for upper gastrointestinal symptoms (α = 0.842). First half-week and second half-week scores showed very good consistency (ICCs range 0.913-0.975). CONCLUSION AND INFERENCES: Good validity and reliability of a novel ESM-based PROM for assessing gastrointestinal symptoms in FD patients was demonstrated. Moreover, this novel PROM allows to evaluate individual symptom patterns and can evaluate interactions between symptoms and environmental/contextual factors. ESM has the potential to increase patients' disease insight, provide tools for self-management, and improve shared decision making. Hence, this novel tool may aid in the transition toward personalized health care for FD patients.

Indexed as

DyspepsiaEcological Momentary AssessmentGastrointestinal DiseasesPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSymptom Assessmentexperience sampling methodfunctional dyspepsiapatient-reported outcome measurequestionnairessymptom perception

Identifiers

PMID33934444
PMCPMC8519073
OpenAlexW3157766674

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.