Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34849449›Full record

ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2021

Generic PROMIS item banks in adults with hemophilia for patient-reported outcome assessment: Feasibility, measurement properties, and relevance.

Isolde A R Kuijlaars, Lorynn Teela, Lize F D van Vulpen, Merel A Timmer, Michiel Coppens, Samantha C Gouw, Marjolein Peters, Marieke J H A Kruip, Marjon H Cnossen, Jelmer J Muis and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Measurement properties and interpretability of the PROMIS item banks in stroke patients: a systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Validation of the pedHALHaemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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 5 institutions in 1 country.

Isolde A R KuijlaarsVan Creveldkliniek University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht University Utrecht The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2920-2258
Lorynn TeelaAmsterdam University Medical Centers Emma Children's Hospital Child and Adolescent Psychiatry & Psychosocial Care Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Amsterdam Public Health University of Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8067-2792
Lize F D van VulpenVan Creveldkliniek University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht University Utrecht The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3242-5524
Merel A TimmerVan Creveldkliniek University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht University Utrecht The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1910-999X
Michiel CoppensDepartment of Vascular Medicine Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences Amsterdam University Medical Centers University of Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6891-9062
Samantha C GouwEmma Children's Hospital Amsterdam University Medical Centers Pediatric Hematology University of Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1957-4122
Marjolein PetersEmma Children's Hospital Amsterdam University Medical Centers Pediatric Hematology University of Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands.
Marieke J H A KruipErasmus MC Department of Hematology Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam Rotterdam The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0265-4871
Marjon H CnossenErasmus MC Department of Pediatric Hematology Sophia Children's Hospital Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam Rotterdam The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1557-2995
Jelmer J MuisAmsterdam University Medical Centers Emma Children's Hospital Child and Adolescent Psychiatry & Psychosocial Care Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Amsterdam Public Health University of Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands.
Evelien S van HoornErasmus MC Department of Public Health Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam Rotterdam The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9661-2746
Lotte HavermanAmsterdam University Medical Centers Emma Children's Hospital Child and Adolescent Psychiatry & Psychosocial Care Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Amsterdam Public Health University of Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7849-0562
Kathelijn FischerVan Creveldkliniek University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht University Utrecht The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7126-6613
Emma Kinderziekenhuis · NLUtrecht University · NLErasmus MC · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLegacy hemophilia-specific questionnaires are considered too long, show floor-/ceiling effects, and/or include irrelevant questions. Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) item banks, including Computer Adaptive Tests (CATs) and short forms, were designed for more efficient outcome assessment.

objectivesEvaluate the feasibility, measurement properties, and relevance of seven PROMIS CATs and two short forms in patients with hemophilia. PATIENTS/

methodsIn this cross-sectional study, Dutch adults with hemophilia completed nine PROMIS item banks electronically. Feasibility was assessed by number of items and floor/ceiling effects. Reliability was determined as the proportion of reliable scores (standard error ≤3.2). Construct validity was assessed by comparison with legacy instruments and expected differences between subgroups. Relevance of item banks was determined by proportions of limited scores.

resultsOverall, 142 of 373 invited patients (mean age, 47 [range, 18-79], 49% severe hemophilia, 46% receiving prophylaxis) responded. Per CAT item bank, mean number of items answered varied from 5 (range, 3-12) to 9 (range, 5-12), with floor effects in pain interference (26% lowest scores) and depression (18% lowest scores). Construct validity and reliability were good for physical function, pain interference, satisfaction with social roles and activities, and fatigue. The CAT physical function showed the most limited scores (38%). The self-efficacy short forms showed ceiling effects (22%-28%) and no relation with the legacy instruments.

conclusionsThe PROMIS CATs physical function, pain interference, satisfaction with social roles and activities, and fatigue are feasible, reliable, and valid alternatives to legacy instruments for patients with hemophilia, with few items and low floor-/ceiling effects.

Indexed as

hemophiliapatient‐reported outcomequestionnairereliabilityvalidity

Identifiers

PMID34849449
PMCPMC8606028
OpenAlexW3217674572

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.