Observational studyJournal of patient-reported outcomes2025
Psychometric validation of the Chronic Ocular Pain Questionnaire (COP-Q).
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.
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.
- A Randomized Double-Masked Study Evaluating Safety and Efficacy of a Novel Topical Cooling Device for Chronic Ocular Surface Pain.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
- Chronic Ocular Surface Pain: An Optometrist and Ophthalmologist Survey.Ophthalmology and therapy · 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
12 authors.
Funding
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
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.