Observational studyAdvances in therapy2026
Assessment of the MFSAF v4.0 and PROMIS Fatigue 7a to Measure Outcomes in Myelofibrosis: Validation from a Non-interventional Mixed Methods Study.
Observational study in Advances in therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMyelofibrosis (MF) is a bone marrow cancer causing impactful symptoms, notably excessive fatigue. While the Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form (MFSAF) v4.0 and PROMIS Fatigue 7a are frequently used in clinical trials, they lack published evidence for content validity in MF. This study evaluated the content validity, psychometric properties, and patient-perceived meaningful change for both measures in an MF population.
methodsThis observational, mixed-methods study involved qualitative concept elicitation (CE) and cognitive debriefing (CD) interviews (n = 17) with patients with primary or secondary MF. Psychometric properties, including test-retest reliability and construct validity, were assessed via online surveys administered at two timepoints (n = 39).
resultsInterviews confirmed fatigue as a universal symptom. CD results showed both instruments were well understood, relevant, and comprehensive, with no recommended changes. Participants identified a 1-to-2-point change on individual item ratings as a meaningful improvement. Psychometric analysis demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α > 0.80) and strong test-retest reliability (ICCs 0.85-0.93) for both measures. Construct validity was supported by expected large correlations with similar constructs (MSAS-SF) and lower correlations with distal concepts such as mental health (SF-12 v2).
conclusionThe MFSAF v4.0 and PROMIS Fatigue 7a effectively capture key MF symptoms and impacts. Both measures are well understood by patients and demonstrate sufficient reliability and validity for use as clinical trial endpoints. Patients can clearly conceptualize and describe meaningful changes in their symptom experience using these tools.
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.