Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34655365›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2021

Patient-reported outcome measures for clinical decision-making in outpatient follow-up: validity and reliability of a renal disease questionnaire.

Birgith Engelst Grove, Liv Marit Valen Schougaard, Per Ramløv Ivarsen, Derek Kyte, Niels Henrik Hjollund, Annette de Thurah

Open access · goldAbstract read
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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurements in chronic and malignant diseases: ten years' experience with PRO-algorithm-based patient-clinician interaction (telePRO) in AmbuFlex.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Birgith Engelst GroveAmbuFlex, Center for Patient-Reported Outcomes, Regional Hospital West Jutland, Herning, Denmark. bigcri@rm.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3763-9911
Liv Marit Valen SchougaardAmbuFlex, Center for Patient-Reported Outcomes, Regional Hospital West Jutland, Herning, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2928-2569
Per Ramløv IvarsenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9626-6070
Derek KyteSchool of Allied Health and Community, University of Worcester, Worcester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7679-6741
Niels Henrik HjollundAmbuFlex/WestChronic, Occupational Medicine, University Research Clinic, Aarhus University, Herning, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6697-6597
Annette de ThurahDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0103-4328
Aarhus University · DKRegional Hospital West Jutland · DK

Funding

TrygFonden 124259
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient-reported outcome measures are increasingly used by clinicians to support communication in telephone- or face-to-face consultations with patients. A renal disease questionnaire has been developed, but not sufficiently evaluated through clinimetrics in clinical setting. Hence, we aimed to evaluate the content validity, construct validity and the test-retest reliability of a renal disease questionnaire to be used for clinical decision-making.

methodsA content, construct validity and test-retest reliability study was conducted in 3 nephrology outpatient clinics in Central Denmark Region, Denmark. Content validity (face validity, comprehensibility and relevance) was assessed among 8 patients and 6 clinicians. Reliability was assessed by asking outpatients with chronic kidney disease to complete the questionnaire twice. Reliability was assessed by kappa statistics and agreement by percentage. Construct validity was determined using 4 a priori defined hypotheses and comparing 2 known groups.

resultsFive new domains emerged, 6 items were rephrased and 3 items were removed following the content validity test. A total of 160 patients completed the questionnaire with median 8 days (IQR 2 days) between assessments. The test-retest reliability parameters of the single items in the questionnaire were substantial to almost perfect as all the observed weighted kappa values ranged from 0.61 to 0.91, 95% CI (0.34 to 0.95). In total, 61% of the single items showed almost perfect agreement. In total, 3 of the 4 hypotheses were accepted and 44% of the items showed satisfying known-group discriminative validity.

conclusionA renal disease questionnaire used for clinical decision-making in outpatient follow-up showed acceptable content validity and substantial to almost perfect reliability. Sufficient construct validity was not established. Incorporating the questionnaire into routine clinical practice may improve the evaluation of disease burden in patients with chronic kidney disease. We ask patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) in Central Region Denmark to complete a questionnaire before each outpatient visit. The answers they provide are used to support communication with their health care provider. A questionnaire requires testing to ensure it can accurately capture important information about patient's symptoms and quality of life. When questionnaires are used to support communication between patients and health care professionals, they need to have good measurement properties. This means they need to be: (1) trustworthy, (2) relevant to a patient's health condition, (3) consistent and produce stable results every time. We explored the measurement properties of a questionnaire designed to be used in the face-to face outpatient visits for patients with CKD. We found that the questionnaire captured consistent and stable results. Using this questionnaire may help health care professionals to assess the patients´ burden of symptoms with a more patient-centered approach. Potentially, the use of the questionnaire will increase the patients´ ability to cope with their symptoms and strengthen patients´ involvement in the clinical decisions concerning their treatment.

Indexed as

Ambulatory carePatient reported outcome measuresRenal insufficiencyReproducibility of results

Identifiers

PMID34655365
PMCPMC8520563
OpenAlexW3205191303

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.