ArticleJournal of pain and symptom management2022
Tailoring Pain Interference Measurement in People with Cancer: A Feasibility Study.
Article in Journal of pain and symptom management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06922188 (Development of Measures to Screen for Financial Hardship in Alzheimer's Disease and Dementia), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Development of Measures to Screen for Financial Hardship in Alzheimer's Disease and Dementia
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- PROMIS.British dental journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
contextMost patient-reported outcomes (PRO) are not directly tailored to an individual patient's values, partially because tailored PROs require clinical interviews or are difficult to use in statistical analyses.
objectivesThis study tested a method for tailoring pain PROs, Precision PROs, that can be implemented, and analyzed using standard statistical tests.
methodsPeople with cancer and pain (n = 231) completed an online survey and then a second survey (n = 161) one to two weeks later. Participants reviewed the PROMIS pain interference item bank, chose the four items most important to their quality of life, and then completed those items. Kappas compared choices between the two surveys. Participants completed measures of pain intensity, physical function, and a standard pain interference measure.
resultsAll participants were able to select four items that were personally meaningful. Only one item (enjoyment of life) was chosen by more than half the sample (50.6%). Kappas for item choice were in the moderate to nearly perfect range for 32 of 35 items. The majority of the sample (59%) preferred tailoring their own PRO questions to completing a previously determined, non-patient-specific PRO. The Precision PRO scores had similar associations with pain intensity and physical function as the standard pain interference measure.
conclusionThe Precision PRO approach was feasible, more preferred by patients, and showed consistency over a short timeframe. This approach could be used to make PRO assessment in clinical care and clinical trials more patient-centered. Additional research is needed to determine the generalizability of this approach to other outcomes and populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.