Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35921034›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2023

Likely change indexes improve estimates of individual change on patient-reported outcomes.

John Devin Peipert, Ron D Hays, David Cella

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Measurement properties of the USER-Participation Restriction subscale and PROMISQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Significant individual change should be used as a lower bound for anchor based estimates of meaningful change on patient-reported outcome scores.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Article
  11. Commentary on "When (Not) to Rely on the Reliable Change Index".Clinical psychology : a publication of the Division of Clinical Psychology of the American Psychological Association · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

John Devin PeipertDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 625 Michigan Ave, 21st Floor, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. john.peipert@northwestern.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5762-7881
Ron D HaysDivision of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, University of California Los Angeles, Department of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6697-907X
David CellaDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 625 Michigan Ave, 21st Floor, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9881-4541

Funding

ECOG-ACRIN NCORP Research Base - TMISTUG1CA189828 · NCI · ECOG-ACRIN MEDICAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION · PI Peter J ODwyer, MITCHELL D. SCHNALL · 2014 to 2026
$199.7M
The Center for Health Improvement of Minority ElderlyP30AG021684 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Homero Erwin del Pino · 2002 to 2026
$19.7M
Analysis of ECOG-ACRIN adverse event data to optimize strategies for the longitudinal assessment of tolerability in the context of evolving cancer treatment paradigms (EVOLV)U01CA233169 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI GRAY, ROBERT J, WAGNER, LYNNE I. · 2018 to 2023
$3.4M
Assessing PROMIS and other simple patient-reported measures for cancer researchR01CA154537 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI SLOAN, JEFF A. · 2011 to 2016
$3.2M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA154537NCI NIH HHS U01CA233169NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA189828NIA NIH HHS P30 AG021684
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIndividual change on a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure can be assessed by statistical significance and meaningfulness to patients. We explored the relationship between these two criteria by varying the confidence levels of the coefficient of repeatability (CR) on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (R) Physical Function (PF) 10a (PF10a) measure.

methodsIn a sample of 1129 adult cancer patients, we estimated individual-change thresholds on the PF10a from baseline to 6 weeks later with the CR at 50%, 68%, and 95% confidence. We also assessed agreement with group- and individual-level thresholds from anchor-based methods [mean change and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve] using a PF-specific patient global impression of change (PGIC).

resultsCRs at 50%, 68%, and 95% confidence were 3, 4, and 7 raw score points, respectively. The ROC- and mean-change-based thresholds for deterioration were -4 and -6; for improvement they were both 2. Kappas for agreement between anchor-based thresholds and CRs for deterioration ranged between κ = 0.65 and 1.00, while for improvement, they ranged between 0.35 and 0.83. Agreement between the PGIC and all CRs always fell below "good" (κ < 0.40) for deterioration (0.30-0.33) and were lower for improvement (0.16-0.28).

conclusionsIn comparison to the CR at 95% confidence, CRs at 50% and 68% confidence (considered likely change indexes) have the advantage of maximizing the proportion of patients appropriately classified as changed according to statistical significance and meaningfulness.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeAdultHumansROC CurveCancerIndividual changeMeaningful changePatient-reported outcomes

Identifiers

PMID35921034
PMCPMC9994541

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.