Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34533663›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2021

Score equivalence of paper-, tablet-, and interactive voice response system-based versions of PROMIS, PRO-CTCAE, and numerical rating scales among cancer patients.

Minji K Lee, Timothy J Beebe, Kathleen J Yost, David T Eton, Paul J Novotny, Amylou C Dueck, Marlene Frost, Jeff A Sloan

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Effects of patient-reported outcome assessment order.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2022
    Trial
  2. 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

8 authors.

Minji K LeeDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. lee.minji@mayo.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1301-4319
Timothy J BeebeDivision of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, 625 Michigan Ave, 27th Floor, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.
Kathleen J YostDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
David T EtonDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Paul J NovotnyDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Amylou C DueckDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, 13400 E. Shea Blvd., Scottsdale, AZ, 85259, USA.
Marlene FrostDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Jeff A SloanDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.

Funding

Assessing PROMIS and other simple patient-reported measures for cancer researchR01CA154537 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI SLOAN, JEFF A. · 2011 to 2016
$3.2M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA154537NCI NIH HHS R01CA154537
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe study tests the effects of data collection modes on patient responses associated with the multi-item measures such as Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement System (PROMIS

methodsAdult cancer patients were recruited from five cancer centers and administered measures of anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, pain intensity, pain interference, ability to participate in social roles and activities, global mental and physical health, and physical function. Patients were randomized to complete the measures on paper (595), interactive voice response (IVR, 596) system, or tablet computer (589). We evaluated differential item functioning (DIF) by method of data collection using the R software package, lordif. For constructs that showed no DIF, we concluded equivalence across modes if the equivalence margin, defined as ± 0.20 × pooled SD, completely surrounds 95% confidence intervals (CI's) for difference in mean score. If the 95% CI fell totally outside the equivalence margin, we concluded systematic score difference by modes. If the 95% CI partly overlaps the equivalence margin, we concluded neither equivalence nor difference.

resultsFor all constructs, no DIF of any kind was found for the three modes. The scores on paper and tablet were more comparable than between IVR and other modes but none of the 95% CI's were completely outside the equivalence margins, in which we established neither equivalence nor difference. Percentages of missing values were comparable for paper and tablet modes. Percentages of missing values were higher for IVR (2.3% to 6.5% depending on measures) compared to paper and tablet modes (0.7% to 3.3% depending on measures and modes), which was attributed to random technical difficulties experienced in some centers.

conclusionAcross all mode comparisons, there were some measures with CI's not completely contained within the margin of small effect. Two visual modes agreed more than visual-auditory pairs. IVR may induce differences in scores unrelated to constructs being measured in comparison with paper and tablet. The users of the surveys should consider using IVR only when paper and computer administration is not feasible.

Indexed as

Differential item functioningInteractive voice responseMode effectMode of administrationNumerical rating scalePaperPatient-reported outcomesPRO-CTCAEPROMISTablet computer

Identifiers

PMID34533663
PMCPMC8448797

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.