ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2025
Comparing Approaches to Link SF-36 PF-10 Scores to PROMIS Physical Function: A Validation Study in Three Clinical Samples.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 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.
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
backgroundPhysical function (PF) is a central patient-reported outcome (PRO) in many clinical conditions. However, the variety of existing PRO measures (PROMs) yield scores on different scales, limiting the score comparability and interpretability. To overcome this gap, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) established a standardized T-score metric using item response theory (IRT). As such, different PROMs measuring PF can be linked to this common metric, allowing for efficient harmonization of scores. Linking algorithms allow conversion of SF-36 PF-10 scores to the PROMIS-PF metric, but these methods have not been validated in independent clinical samples.
objectiveTo validate and compare two established linking methods for the translation of SF-36 PF-10 scores to the PROMIS-PF metric in clinical populations.
designTwo previously proposed linking approaches were applied to estimate PROMIS-PF T-scores based on the SF-36 PF-10: 1. Item-level linking, 2. Cross-walk tables. The directly observed T-scores from the 20-item PROMIS-PF short form (PROMIS-PF20a) served as a benchmark against which the linked T-scores from the SF-36 PF-10 were compared. Results were compared to a newly estimated IRT-model based on the study's dataset.
participantsPatients from cardiology (n = 185), rheumatology (n = 172), and psychosomatic medicine (n = 262), who completed both the PROMIS-PF20a and the SF-36 PF-10. MAIN MEASURES: PROMIS-PF20a, SF-36 PF-10. KEY
resultsAll linking approaches demonstrated high association with observed PROMIS-PF20a T-scores (Pearson correlation ≥ 0.84) and indicated negligible practical differences at the group level (standardized mean difference < 0.2).
conclusionsTwo currently available linking approaches can reliably translate SF-36 PF-10 scores to standardized PROMIS-PF T-scores across different clinical samples, eliminating the need for re-estimating models in new datasets. As all linking algorithms ultimately presented highly comparable results, cross-walk tables may be preferred as the most practicable approach, allowing for score conversion without complex statistical modeling.
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.