ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2024
Psychometric properties of computerized adaptive testing for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patient-reported outcome measurement.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Brief History of COPD: As Told by Some of Its Senior Scientists and Clinicians.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundComputerized adaptive testing (CAT) is an effective way to reduce time, repetitious redundancy, and respond burden, and has been used to measure outcomes in many diseases. This study aimed to develop and validate a comprehensive disease-specific CAT for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patient-reported outcome measurement.
methodsThe discrimination and difficulty of the items from the modified patient-reported outcome scale for COPD (mCOPD-PRO) were analyzed using item response theory. Then the initial item, item selection method, ability estimation method, and stopping criteria were further set based on Concerto platform to form the CAT. Finally, the reliability and validity were validated.
resultsThe item discrimination ranged from 1.05 to 2.71, and the item difficulty ranged from - 3.08 to 3.65. The measurement reliability of the CAT ranged from 0.910 to 0.922 using random method, while that ranged from 0.910 to 0.924 using maximum Fisher information (MFI) method. The content validity was good. The correlation coefficient between theta of the CAT and COPD assessment test and modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale scores using random method was 0.628 and 0.540 (P < 0.001; P < 0.001) respectively, while that using MFI method was 0.347 and 0.328 (P = 0.007; P = 0.010) respectively. About 11 items (reducing by 59.3%) on average were tested using random method, while about seven items (reducing by 74.1%) on average using MFI method. The correlation coefficient between theta of the CAT and mCOPD-PRO total scores using random method was 0.919 (P < 0.001), while that using MFI method was 0.760 (P < 0.001).
conclusionsThe comprehensive disease-specific CAT for COPD patient-reported outcome measurement is well developed with good psychometric properties, which can provide an efficient, accurate, and user-friendly measurement for patient-reported outcome of COPD.
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.