Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38141522›Full record

ArticleSeminars in arthritis and rheumatism2024

Responsiveness and meaningful thresholds of PROMIS pain interference, fatigue, and physical function forms in adults with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: Report from the OMERACT Myositis Working Group.

D Saygin, D DiRenzo, J Raaphorst, I de Groot, C O Bingham, I E Lundberg, M Regardt, C Sarver, M de Visser, L J Maxwell and 8 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

18 authors at 10 institutions in 7 countries.

D SayginDivision of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, USA.
D DiRenzoDivision of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
J RaaphorstDepartment of Neurology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
I de GrootPatient Research Partner, Netherlands.
C O BinghamDivision of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA.
I E LundbergDivision of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Solna, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University, Stockholm, Sweden.
M RegardtDepartment of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Occupational Therapy, Karolinska Institutet and Medical Unit Occupational Therapy and Physical Therapy, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
C SarverPatient Research Partner, USA.
M de VisserDepartment of Neurology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
L J MaxwellFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
D BeatonInstitute for Work & Health and Institute for Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
J Y KimDivision of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital and College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
M NeedhamDepartment of Neurology, Fiona Stanley Hospital, IIID Murdoch University and University of Notre Dame, Perth, Australia.
H AlexandersonMedical Unit Occupational Therapy and Physical Therapy, Karolinska University Hospital and Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine Solna, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
L Christopher-StineDivision of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA.
C A MecoliDivision of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA.
J K ParkDivision of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital and College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. Electronic address: jinkyunpark@snu.ac.kr.
OMERACT Myositis Working Group
Johns Hopkins University · USKarolinska University Hospital · SEAmsterdam Neuroscience · NLSeoul National University Hospital · KRMurdoch University · AUNational Patient Safety Foundation · USUniversity of Ottawa · CAUniversity of Pennsylvania · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · USUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

Optimizing the Approach to Identify Cancer-Associated MyositisK23AR075898 · NIAMS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI MECOLI, CHRISTOPHER · 2019 to 2023
$773k
NIAMS NIH HHS K23 AR075898
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA series of qualitative studies conducted by the OMERACT Myositis Working Group identified pain interference, fatigue, and physical function as highly important life impact domains for adults with idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIM). In this study, our goal was to assess the responsiveness and minimal important difference of PROMIS pain interference (6a), fatigue (7a), and physical function (8b).

methodsAdults with IIM from USA, Netherlands, Korea, Sweden, and Australia with two "clinical" visits were enrolled in this prospective study. Anchor questions on a Likert scale were collected at baseline, and manual muscle testing (MMT), physician and patient reported global disease activity, and PROMIS instruments were collected at both visits. Responsiveness was assessed with i) ANOVA, ii) paired t-test, effect size and standardized response mean, and iii) Pearson correlation. Minimal important difference (MID), minimal important change (MIC) and minimal detectable change (MDC) values were calculated.

results114 patients with IIM (median age 60, 60 % female) completed both visits. Changes in PROMIS instruments were significantly different among anchor categories. Patients who reported improvement had a significant improvement in their PROMIS scores with at least medium effect size, while patients who reported worsening and stability did not show a significant change with weak effect size. PROMIS instruments had weak to moderate correlations with MMT, patient and physician global disease activity. MID was approximately 2-3 points for Pain Interference and 3-4 points for Fatigue and Physical Function forms based on the method used. MIC was approximately 4-5 for improvement of all the instruments, while MDC was 1.7-2 points for Pain Interference and Physical Function and 3.2-3.9 for Fatigue.

conclusionThis study provides evidence towards the responsiveness of the PROMIS instruments in a large international prospective cohort of adults with IIM supporting their use as PROMs in adult myositis.

Indexed as

MyositisPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultFatigueFemaleHumansMalePainProspective StudiesMyopathyMyositisOMERACTOutcome measuresPROMISPsychometrics

Identifiers

PMID38141522
PMCPMC11663439
OpenAlexW4389502624

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.