Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35858721›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Use of computerised adaptive testing to reduce the number of items in patient-reported hip and knee outcome scores: an analysis of the NHS England National Patient-Reported Outcome Measures programme.

Jonathan Peter Evans, Christopher Gibbons, Andrew D Toms, Jose Maria Valderas

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Piloting Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Cleft Lip and Palate Services in Aotearoa New Zealand.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Jonathan Peter EvansHealth Services and Policy Research Group, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK j.p.evans2@exeter.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0090-1012
Christopher GibbonsSection of Patient -Centred Analytics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Andrew D TomsPrincess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Centre, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, UK.
Jose Maria ValderasHealth Services and Policy Research Group, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
National University of Singapore · SGRoyal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust · GBThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of Exeter · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveOver 160 000 participants per year complete the 12-item Oxford Hip and Knee Scores (OHS/OKS) as part of the NHS England Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) programme. We used a modern computational approach, known as computerised adaptive testing (CAT), to simulate individually tailored OHS and OKS assessment, with the goal of reducing the number of questions a patient must complete without compromising measurement accuracy.

methodsWe fit the 2018/2019 PROMs data to an item response theory (IRT) model. We assessed IRT model assumptions alongside reliability. We used parameters from the IRT model with data from 2017/2018 to simulate CAT assessments. Two simulations were run until a prespecified SE of measurement was met (SE=0.32 and SE=0.45). We compared the number of questions required to meet each cut-off and assessed the correlation between the full-length and CAT administration.

resultsWe conducted IRT analysis using 40 432 OHS and 44 714 OKS observations. The OHS and OKS were both unidimensional (root mean square error of approximation 0.08 and 0.07, respectively) and marginal reliability 0.91 and 0.90. The CAT, with a precision limit of SE=0.32 and SE=0.45, required a median of four items (IQR 1) and two items (IQR 1), respectively, for the OHS, and median of four items (IQR 2) and two items (IQR 0) for the OKS. This represents a potential 82% reduction in PROM length. In the context of 160 000 yearly assessments, these methodologies could result in the omission of some 1 280 000 redundant questions per year, which equates to 40 000 hours of patient time.

conclusionThe application of IRT to the OHS and OKS produces an efficient and substantially reduced CAT. We have demonstrated a path to reduce the burden and potentially increase the compliance for these ubiquitous outcome measures without compromising measurement accuracy.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeComputerized Adaptive TestingEnglandHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresReproducibility of ResultsState Medicineadult orthopaedicshipkneequality in health care

Identifiers

PMID35858721
PMCPMC9315912
OpenAlexW4286264971

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.