ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2024
Crosswalk between the PROMIS physical function CAT and PROMIS upper extremity CAT v1.2 in a hand surgery population.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Linking FAAM and PROMIS Physical Function Scores: A Crosswalk Study.Foot & ankle orthopaedics · 2026Article
- CORR Insights®: Does a Concise Patient-reported Outcome Measure Provide a Valid Measure of Physical Function for Cancer Patients After Lower Extremity Surgery?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is no gold standard patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in hand surgery. As a result, a diverse array of PROM instruments have been utilized across centers over time. Lack of score interchangeability limits the ability to compare or conglomerate scores when new instruments are introduced. Our aim was to develop a linkage for the PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 and PROMIS PF CAT scores and develop crosswalk tables for interconversion between these PROMs.
methodsRetrospective review was conducted to identify adult (≥ 18y) patients seen by orthopaedic hand surgeons at a single academic tertiary care hospital who had completed PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 and PROMIS PF CAT score at the same visit. For those with multiple visits, only one randomly selected visit was included in the analyses. Pearson's correlation was calculated to determine the linear relationship between the scores. Linkage from PF to UE was performed utilizing several commonly utilized equating models (identity, mean, linear, equipercentile and circle-arc methods). The performance of the models was assessed using intraclass correlation (ICC) between observed PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 and estimated PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 scores generated using the model as well as Root Mean Square Error (RMSE). The model chosen as the 'best' was further assessed for population invariance using root expected mean squared difference (REMSD) where < 0.08 were considered good.
resultsOf 10,081 included patients, mean age was 48.3 (SD = 17.0), and 54% were female (5,477/10,081). Mean UE CAT v1.2 and PF CAT scores were 37 (SD = 9.8) and 46 (SD = 10.0), respectively. There was a strong correlation between the scores (Pearson correlation r = 0.70). All methods performed acceptably (ICC ≥ 0.66 and RMSE < = 7.52 for all). The equipercentile method had the highest ICC (ICC = 0.70 (95% CI 0.69-0.71)) while the mean and circle arc methods had the lowest RMSE. The circle arc method is the most reliable with the smallest standard error and has satisfactory population invariance across age group (REMSD 0.065) and sex (REMSD 0.036).
conclusionsCrosswalk tables to be used for bidirectional conversion between scores were created. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.