Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40072779›Full record

Observational studyJournal of patient-reported outcomes2025

Psychometric validation of the Chronic Ocular Pain Questionnaire (COP-Q).

Amy Findley, Brigitte J Sloesen, Nicola Hodson, Agkreta Leventi, Ben Pascoe, Rob Arbuckle, Paul O'Brien, Christel Naujoks, Michela Montecchi-Palmer, Diana Plaza and 2 more

Abstract readValidation StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

12 authors.

Amy FindleyAdelphi Values Ltd, Patient-Centered Outcomes, Bollington, Cheshire, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9887-6956
Brigitte J SloesenNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-5144-6678
Nicola HodsonAdelphi Values Ltd, Patient-Centered Outcomes, Bollington, Cheshire, UK. nicola.hodson@adelphivalues.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-5975-8032
Agkreta LeventiAdelphi Values Ltd, Patient-Centered Outcomes, Bollington, Cheshire, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-6387-5874
Ben PascoeAdelphi Values Ltd, Patient-Centered Outcomes, Bollington, Cheshire, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-4454-1087
Rob ArbuckleAdelphi Values Ltd, Patient-Centered Outcomes, Bollington, Cheshire, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0345-2523
Paul O'BrienNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Christel NaujoksNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3799-6521
Michela Montecchi-PalmerNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Diana PlazaNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Paul M KarpeckiKentucky Eye Institute and University of Pikeville Kentucky College of Optometry, Pikeville, KY, USA.
Pedram HamrahDepartment of Ophthalmology, Cornea Service, New England Eye Center and Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Chronic Ocular Pain Questionnaire (COP-Q) is a newly developed patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure intended to assess symptoms and impacts associated with Chronic Ocular Surface Pain (COSP). This study assessed the psychometric properties of the COP-Q to determine the adequacy of the COP-Q as a 'fit-for-purpose' instrument to derive trial endpoints for future clinical studies in COSP.

methodsPatients with COSP completed the COP-Q daily for four weeks on an electronic, touch-screen, tablet device as part of a longitudinal, observational study in the United States (N = 124). Analyses were conducted to assess item properties, dimensionality and scoring, reliability and validity, and interpretation of scores. In addition, 4-hour and 24-hour recall period versions of the COP-Q Symptom Module were compared.

resultsItem responses were distributed across the full response scale for most COP-Q items. Inter-item correlations did not identify any redundant items (r > 0.90) and all items correlated at > 0.40 in their respective module. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) provided acceptable support for the unidimensional structure of the multi-item scales in the COP-Q and calculation of a total score for each module. However, CFA and Rasch analysis outlined potential redundant items for the COP-Q Visual Tasking Module (VTM), which were removed, resulting in a six-item VTM. The multi-item COP-Q modules had excellent internal consistency (α range = 0.91-0.96) and suggested fair to excellent test-retest reliability (ICC/Kappa range = 0.651-0.940) for all COP-Q modules. Construct validity for all COP-Q modules was supported by a logical pattern of correlations with concurrent measures and evidence of ability to distinguish between known-groups, with statistically significant differences between COSP severity groups. Paired t-tests, coefficient of determination (CoD) and concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) showed statistically significant differences between the two recall period versions of the Symptom Module, although the magnitude of the difference was small, and each version shares a high level of reproducibility in scores.

conclusionsFindings provide evidence that the COP-Q is a valid and reliable measure of patient-reported COSP symptoms and impacts for use in future clinical trials in COSP. Both 4-hour and 24-hour Symptom Module recall period versions are likely to yield consistent results and are equally robust.

Indexed as

Chronic PainEye PainPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultAgedFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesChronic ocular surface painClinical outcome assessmentObservationalPatient-reported outcomePsychometric validation

Identifiers

PMID40072779
PMCPMC11903982

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.