Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37104031›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

The Development, Deployment, and Evaluation of the CLEFT-Q Computerized Adaptive Test: A Multimethods Approach Contributing to Personalized, Person-Centered Health Assessments in Plastic Surgery.

Conrad Harrison, Inge Apon, Kenny Ardouin, Chris Sidey-Gibbons, Anne Klassen, Stefan Cano, Karen Wong Riff, Andrea Pusic, Sarah Versnel, Maarten Koudstaal and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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
  3. Article
  4. 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

15 authors at 11 institutions in 5 countries.

Conrad HarrisonNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1428-5751
Inge AponDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dutch Craniofacial Center, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7323-2676
Kenny ArdouinCleft Lip and Palate Association, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8105-3926
Chris Sidey-GibbonsMD Anderson Center for INSPiRED Cancer Care, University of Texas, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4732-7305
Anne KlassenDepartment of Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4720-0096
Stefan CanoModus Outcomes, Letchworth Garden City, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9390-273X
Karen Wong RiffDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2031-7235
Andrea PusicPatient-Reported Outcomes, Values & Experience Center, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4352-9409
Sarah VersnelDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Dutch Craniofacial Center, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0507-6106
Maarten KoudstaalDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dutch Craniofacial Center, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5060-7711
Alexander C AlloriDivision of Plastic, Maxillofacial & Oral Surgery, Duke University Hospital & Children's Health Center, Durham, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3334-9877
Carolyn Rogers-VizenaDepartment of Plastic and Oral Surgery, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2166-1209
Marc C SwanThe Spires Cleft Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3110-5927
Dominic FurnissNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2780-7173
Jeremy RodriguesWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9347-5026
Erasmus MC · NLNuffield Orthopaedic Centre · GBBoston Children's Hospital · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USBuckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust · GBDuke Children's Hospital & Health Center · USHospital for Sick Children · CAJohn Radcliffe Hospital · GBMcMaster University · CAThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of Canterbury · NZ

Funding

CIHR FRN-130515
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRoutine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and computerized adaptive tests (CATs) may improve care in a range of surgical conditions. However, most available CATs are neither condition-specific nor coproduced with patients and lack clinically relevant score interpretation. Recently, a PROM called the CLEFT-Q has been developed for use in the treatment of cleft lip or palate (CL/P), but the assessment burden may be limiting its uptake into clinical practice.

objectiveWe aimed to develop a CAT for the CLEFT-Q, which could facilitate the uptake of the CLEFT-Q PROM internationally. We aimed to conduct this work with a novel patient-centered approach and make source code available as an open-source framework for CAT development in other surgical conditions.

methodsCATs were developed with the Rasch measurement theory, using full-length CLEFT-Q responses collected during the CLEFT-Q field test (this included 2434 patients across 12 countries). These algorithms were validated in Monte Carlo simulations involving full-length CLEFT-Q responses collected from 536 patients. In these simulations, the CAT algorithms approximated full-length CLEFT-Q scores iteratively, using progressively fewer items from the full-length PROM. Agreement between full-length CLEFT-Q score and CAT score at different assessment lengths was measured using the Pearson correlation coefficient, root-mean-square error (RMSE), and 95% limits of agreement. CAT settings, including the number of items to be included in the final assessments, were determined in a multistakeholder workshop that included patients and health care professionals. A user interface was developed for the platform, and it was prospectively piloted in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Interviews were conducted with 6 patients and 4 clinicians to explore end-user experience.

resultsThe length of all 8 CLEFT-Q scales in the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) Standard Set combined was reduced from 76 to 59 items, and at this length, CAT assessments reproduced full-length CLEFT-Q scores accurately (with correlations between full-length CLEFT-Q score and CAT score exceeding 0.97, and the RMSE ranging from 2 to 5 out of 100). Workshop stakeholders considered this the optimal balance between accuracy and assessment burden. The platform was perceived to improve clinical communication and facilitate shared decision-making.

conclusionsOur platform is likely to facilitate routine CLEFT-Q uptake, and this may have a positive impact on clinical care. Our free source code enables other researchers to rapidly and economically reproduce this work for other PROMs.

Indexed as

Cleft LipCleft PalatePlastic Surgery ProceduresSurgery, PlasticComputerized Adaptive TestingHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresCATcleft lipcleft palateCLEFT-Qcomputerized adaptive testoutcome assessmentpatient-reported outcome measures

Identifiers

PMID37104031
PMCPMC10185334
OpenAlexW4367174433

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.