Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38265747›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2024

Administering selected subscales of patient-reported outcome questionnaires to reduce patient burden and increase relevance: a position statement on a modular approach.

Daniel Serrano, David Cella, Don Husereau, Bellinda King-Kallimanis, Tito Mendoza, Tomas Salmonson, Arthur Stone, Alexandra Zaleta, Devender Dhanda, Andriy Moshyk and 6 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2024. 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
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  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

16 authors.

Daniel SerranoPharmerit International, Bethesda, MD, USA. DSerrano@ThePsychometricsTeam.org.
David CellaNorthwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA.
Don HusereauUniversity of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Bellinda King-KallimanisLUNGevity Foundation, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Tito MendozaUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Tomas SalmonsonConsilium Salmonson & Hemmings, Uppsala, Sweden.
Arthur StoneUniversity of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Alexandra ZaletaIndependent Consultant, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Devender DhandaBristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA.
Andriy MoshykBristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA.
Fei LiuBristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA.
Alan L ShieldsAdelphi Values, Boston, MA, USA.
Fiona TaylorAdelphi Values, Boston, MA, USA.
Sasha SpiteAdelphi Values, Boston, MA, USA.
James W ShawBristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA.
Julia BravermanBristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA.

Funding

Office of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (OPCORe)ZIDBC012078 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI MENDOZA, TITO · 2023 to 2025
$3.6M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires considered in this paper contain multiple subscales, although not all subscales are equally relevant for administration in all target patient populations. A group of measurement experts, developers, license holders, and other scientific-, regulatory-, payer-, and patient-focused stakeholders participated in a panel to discuss the benefits and challenges of a modular approach, defined here as administering a subset of subscales out of a multi-scaled PRO measure. This paper supports the position that it is acceptable, and sometimes preferable, to take a modular approach when administering PRO questionnaires, provided that certain conditions have been met and a rigorous selection process performed. Based on the experiences and perspectives of all stakeholders, using a modular approach can reduce patient burden and increase the relevancy of the items administered, and thereby improve measurement precision and eliminate wasted data without sacrificing the scientific validity and utility of the instrument. The panelists agreed that implementing a modular approach is not expected to have a meaningful impact on item responses, subscale scores, variability, reliability, validity, and effect size estimates; however, collecting additional evidence for the impact of context may be desirable. It is also important to recognize that adequate rationale and evidence (e.g., of fit-for-purpose status and relevance to patients) and a robust consensus process that includes patient perspectives are required to inform selection of subscales, as in any other measurement circumstance, is expected. We believe that the considerations discussed within (content validity, administration context, and psychometric factors) are relevant across multiple therapeutic areas.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesClinical trialModular approachOncologyPatient-reported outcomeQuestionnaire

Identifiers

PMID38265747
PMCPMC10973071

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.