Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34901299›Full record

ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2021

Performance of the inFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome Plus (FLU-PRO Plus) Instrument in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Stephanie A Richard, Nusrat J Epsi, Simon Pollett, David A Lindholm, Allison M W Malloy, Ryan Maves, Gregory C Utz, Tahaniyat Lalani, Alfred G Smith, Rupal M Mody and 17 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

27 authors.

Stephanie A RichardInfectious Disease Clinical Research Program, Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0530-384X
Nusrat J EpsiInfectious Disease Clinical Research Program, Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Simon PollettInfectious Disease Clinical Research Program, Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
David A LindholmBrooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, USA.
Allison M W MalloyUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Ryan MavesInfectious Disease Clinical Research Program, Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Gregory C UtzInfectious Disease Clinical Research Program, Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Tahaniyat LalaniInfectious Disease Clinical Research Program, Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9361-2991
Alfred G SmithNaval Medical Center Portsmouth, Portsmouth, Virginia, USA.
Rupal M ModyWilliam Beaumont Army Medical Center, El Paso, Texas, USA.
Anuradha GanesanInfectious Disease Clinical Research Program, Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Rhonda E ColomboInfectious Disease Clinical Research Program, Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Christopher J ColomboUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Sharon W ChiInfectious Disease Clinical Research Program, Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Nikhil HuprikarUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Derek T LarsonUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Samantha BazanCarl R. Darnall Army Medical Center, Fort Hood, Texas, USA.
Cristian MadarTripler Army Medical Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
Charlotte LanteriInfectious Disease Clinical Research Program, Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Julia S RozmanInfectious Disease Clinical Research Program, Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Caroline EnglishInfectious Disease Clinical Research Program, Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Katrin MendeInfectious Disease Clinical Research Program, Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
David R TribbleInfectious Disease Clinical Research Program, Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Brian K AganInfectious Disease Clinical Research Program, Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5114-1669
Timothy H BurgessInfectious Disease Clinical Research Program, Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
John H PowersClinical Research Directorate, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, Maryland, USA.
Epidemiology, Immunology, and Clinical Characteristics of Pandemic Infectious Diseases (EPICC) COVID-19 Cohort Study Group

Funding

CCR NIH HHS HHSN261200800001CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261200800001ENIAID NIH HHS Y01 AI005072
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe inFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome Plus (FLU-PRO Plus) is a patient-reported outcome data collection instrument assessing symptoms of viral respiratory tract infections across 8 body systems. This study evaluated the measurement properties of FLU-PRO Plus in a study enrolling individuals with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

methodsData from a prospective cohort study (EPICC) in US Military Health System beneficiaries evaluated for COVID-19 was utilized. Adults with symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection with FLU-PRO Plus survey information within 1 week of symptom onset were included. Reliability of FLU-PRO Plus was estimated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC; 2 days' reproducibility). Known-groups validity was assessed using patient global assessment (PGA) of disease severity. Patient report of return to usual health was used to assess responsiveness (day 1-6/7).

resultsTwo hundred twenty-six SARS-CoV-2-positive participants were included in the analysis. Reliability among those who reported no change in their symptoms from one day to the next was high for most domains (ICC range, 0.68-0.94 for day 1 to day 2). Construct validity was demonstrated by moderate to high correlation between the PGA rating of disease severity and domain and total scores (eg, total scores correlation: 0.69 [influenza-like illness severity], 0.69 [interference in daily activities], and -0.58 [physical health]). In addition, FLU-PRO Plus demonstrated good known-groups validity, with increasing domain and total scores observed with increasing severity ratings.

conclusionsFLU-PRO Plus performs well in measuring signs and symptoms in SARS-CoV-2 infection with excellent construct validity, known-groups validity, and responsiveness to change. Standardized data collection instruments facilitate meta-analyses, vaccine effectiveness studies, and other COVID-19 research activities.

Indexed as

clinical studiesclinical trialsCOVID-19endpointsmeasurement propertiespatient-reported outcomesSARS-CoV-2symptomssymptom scalesvalidity

Identifiers

PMID34901299
PMCPMC8661080

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.