Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36695911›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2023

Psychometric validation and testing of the 10-item pediatric daily chest-related electronic patient reported outcome (ePRO) diary.

Rob Arbuckle, Tim Shea, Kate Burrows, Chris Marshall, Andrew Trigg, Julia Stein, Helmut H Albrecht

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Development of an electronic system for self/proxy symptom tracking alongside children with cancer and their caregivers: a co-design exemplar.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Rob ArbuckleAdelphi Values Patient-Centered Outcomes, Bollington, UK. rob.arbuckle@adelphivalues.com.ORCID 0000-0003-0345-2523
Tim SheaRB Health (US), LLC, Parsippany, NJ, USA.
Kate BurrowsAdelphi Values Patient-Centered Outcomes (at the time research was conducted), Bollington, UK.
Chris MarshallAdelphi Values Patient-Centered Outcomes (at the time research was conducted), Bollington, UK.
Andrew TriggAdelphi Values Patient-Centered Outcomes (at the time research was conducted), Bollington, UK.
Julia SteinAdelphi Values Patient-Centered Outcomes, Bollington, UK.
Helmut H AlbrechtHerbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Cellular Biology and Pharmacology, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA.
Adelphi Group (United Kingdom) · GBFlorida International University · USReckitt Benckiser (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveThe chest-related electronic patient reported outcome (ePRO) diary was recently developed to assess chest-related symptoms experienced by pediatric and adolescent populations during upper respiratory tract infections (URTI). The objective of this research was the psychometric evaluation of the chest-related ePRO diary in pediatric, adolescent and adult participants.

methodsThis non-interventional, psychometric validation study involved participants (N = 195; n = 42 6-8 years; n = 47 9-11 years; n = 55 12-17 years, n = 51 18+ years) completing the chest-related ePRO diary twice daily for 10 days while experiencing an acute URTI. Preliminary item-level performance and dimensionality results, along with consideration of previous qualitative findings, were used to inform item reduction decisions, the structure of the measure and scoring algorithm development. Subsequent analyses on the finalized measure included assessments of reliability (internal consistency and test-retest reliability), construct validity (convergent validity and known groups validity) and ability to detect change. Comparisons of findings were made between the different age groups as part of the analyses to assess the psychometric properties of the chest-related ePRO diary and to characterize potential differences in the symptom experience of children, adolescents, and adults.

resultsThe measure demonstrated strong quality of completion and showed relatively similar trajectories of symptom scores over time within different age subgroups and good item response distribution properties. Exploratory factor analysis supported a one-factor solution in the total population and within age subgroups, and test-retest reliability of the measure was strong (Intra-class correlation: 0.843-0.894 between Visit 1 and Day 1). The measure also demonstrated strong construct validity through high correlations with relevant items on the Child Cold Symptom Questionnaire (CCSQ), strong known groups validity (with statistically significant differences between severity groups) and was responsive to change over time with change groups defined based on change on global items.

conclusionThe findings demonstrate that the chest-related ePRO diary provides a valid, reliable, responsive measure of chest congestion symptoms experienced with the common cold in pediatric and adolescent populations, and that only minor differences are present in the disease trajectory when comparing adults to younger participants, supporting the use of the measure in interventional studies.

Indexed as

ElectronicsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdolescentAdultChildHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesePRO diaryExit interviewsPatient-reported outcome developmentPediatricsPsychometric validation

Identifiers

PMID36695911
PMCPMC9877252
OpenAlexW4317951771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.