Dataset Information

Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring system.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:The PROMIS-Preference (PROPr) score is a recently developed summary score for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). PROPr is a preference-based scoring system for seven PROMIS domains created using multiplicative multi-attribute utility theory. It serves as a generic, societal, preference-based summary scoring system of health-related quality of life. This manuscript evaluates construct validity of PROPr in two large samples from the US general population. METHODS:We utilized 2 online panel surveys, the PROPr Estimation Survey and the Profiles-Health Utilities Index (HUI) Survey. Both included the PROPr measure, patient demographic information, self-reported chronic conditions, and other preference-based summary scores: the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D-5L) and HUI in the PROPr Estimation Survey and the HUI in the Profiles-HUI Survey. The HUI was scored as both the Mark 2 and the Mark 3. Known-groups validity was evaluated using age- and gender-stratified mean scores and health condition impact estimates. Condition impact estimates were created using ordinary least squares regression in which a summary score was regressed on age, gender, and a single health condition. The coefficient for the health condition is the estimated effect on the preference score of having a condition vs. not having it. Convergent validity was evaluated using Pearson correlations between PROPr and other summary scores. RESULTS:The sample consisted of 983 respondents from the PROPr Estimation Survey and 3,000 from the Profiles-HUI survey. Age- and gender-stratified mean PROPr scores were lower than EQ-5D and HUI scores, with fewer subjects having scores corresponding to perfect health on the PROPr. In the PROPr Estimation survey, all 11 condition impact estimates were statistically significant using PROPr, 8 were statistically significant by the EQ-5D, 7 were statistically significant by HUI Mark 2, and 9 were statistically significant by HUI Mark 3. In the Profiles-HUI survey, all 21 condition impact estimates were statistically significant using summary scores from all three scoring systems. In these samples, the correlations between PROPr and the other summary measures ranged from 0.67 to 0.70. CONCLUSIONS:These results provide evidence of construct validity for PROPr using samples from the US general population.

SUBMITTER: Hanmer J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6067708 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring system.

Hanmer Janel J Dewitt Barry B Yu Lan L Tsevat Joel J Roberts Mark M Revicki Dennis D Pilkonis Paul A PA Hess Rachel R Hays Ron D RD Fischhoff Baruch B Feeny David D Condon David D Cella David D

PloS one 20180731 7

<h4>Objectives</h4>The PROMIS-Preference (PROPr) score is a recently developed summary score for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). PROPr is a preference-based scoring system for seven PROMIS domains created using multiplicative multi-attribute utility theory. It serves as a generic, societal, preference-based summary scoring system of health-related quality of life. This manuscript evaluates construct validity of PROPr in two large samples from the US general ...[more]

PMID: 30063733

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectivesA preference-based health utility score (PROPr) can be calculated using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System domain scores. We assessed the construct validity of PROPr among patients treated with KRT (hemodialysis or kidney transplant).Design, setting, participants, & measurementsWe performed a secondary analysis of data collected in multicenter, cross-sectional studies of adults treated with KRT, recruited between April 2016 to March 2020 in Toronto, Canada. All participants provided informed consent. The outcome was the PROPr score. Coadministered outcome variables included the Short-Form Six-Domain (SF-6D) and EuroQol Five-Domain Five-Level (EQ-5D-5L) scores. Socioeconomic and clinical variables included age, sex, diabetes, eGFR, serum albumin, hemoglobin, KRT, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Construct validity was assessed through correlations between PROPr and SF-6D or EQ-5D-5L, and associations between PROPr and other exposure variables. Health-condition impact estimates (coefficients for health conditions compared with a referent category, e.g., dialysis versus kidney transplant) were calculated using multivariable linear regression.ResultsThe mean (SD) age of the 524 participants was 57 (17) years, 58% were male, and 45% were White. Median (interquartile range) score was 0.39 (0.24-0.58) for PROPr, 0.69 (0.58-0.86) for SF-6D, and 0.85 (0.70-0.91) for EQ-5D-5L. Large correlations were observed between PROPr versus SF-6D (0.79; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.76 to 0.82) and EQ-5D-5L (0.71; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.75). Both PROPr and the other utility indices demonstrated health-condition impact in the expected direction. For example, the estimate for PROPr was -0.17 (95% CI, -0.13 to -0.21) for dialysis (versus kidney transplant), -0.05 (95% CI, -0.11 to 0.01; P=0.08) for kidney transplant recipients with an eGFR of <45 versus ≥45 ml/min per 1.73 m2, and -0.28 (95% CI, -0.22 to -0.33) for moderate/severe versus no/mild depressive symptoms.ConclusionsOur results support the validity of PROPr among patients treated with KRT.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Several methods are recommended equally strongly for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk persons. Risk stratification would enable tailoring of screening within this group, with less invasive tests (sigmoidoscopy or occult blood tests) for lower-risk persons and colonoscopy for higher-risk persons. OBJECTIVE:To create a risk index for advanced neoplasia (colorectal cancer and adenomas or serrated polyps ?1.0 cm, villous histology, or high-grade dysplasia) anywhere in the colorectum, using the most common risk factors for colorectal neoplasia. DESIGN:Cross-sectional study. SETTING:Multiple endoscopy units, primarily in the Midwest. PATIENTS:Persons aged 50 to 80 years undergoing initial screening colonoscopy (December 2004 to September 2011). MEASUREMENTS:Derivation and validation of a risk index based on points from regression coefficients for age, sex, waist circumference, cigarette smoking, and family history of colorectal cancer. RESULTS:Among 2993 persons in the derivation set, prevalence of advanced neoplasia was 9.4%. Risks for advanced neoplasia in persons at very low, low, intermediate, and high risk were 1.92% (95% CI, 0.63% to 4.43%), 4.88% (CI, 3.79% to 6.18%), 9.93% (CI, 8.09% to 12.0%), and 24.9% (CI, 21.1% to 29.1%), respectively (P < 0.001). Sigmoidoscopy to the descending colon in the low-risk groups would have detected 51 of 70 (73% [CI, 61% to 83%]) advanced neoplasms. Among 1467 persons in the validation set, corresponding risks for advanced neoplasia were 1.65% (CI, 0.20% to 5.84%), 3.31% (CI, 2.08% to 4.97%), 10.9% (CI, 8.26% to 14.1%), and 22.3% (CI, 16.9% to 28.5%), respectively (P < 0.001). Sigmoidoscopy would have detected 21 of 24 (87.5% [CI, 68% to 97%]) advanced neoplasms. LIMITATIONS:Split-sample validation; results apply to first-time screening. CONCLUSION:This index stratifies risk for advanced neoplasia among average-risk persons by identifying lower-risk groups for which noncolonoscopy strategies may be effective and efficient and a higher-risk group for which colonoscopy may be preferred. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE:National Cancer Institute, Walther Cancer Institute, Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, and Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute.

Project description:Geographic tongue (GT) is a chronic condition of unknown aetiology, with no defined parameters to establish the protocol for evidence-based management. Validation of a newly developed and proposed clinical index to assess the severity of GT could assist in its diagnosis, especially in cases associated with systemic dermatological diseases in the form of psoriasis. To verify the applicability of the geographic tongue area and severity index (GTASI). This involved healthcare professionals from different specialties to evaluate the usefulness of the GTASI in supporting GT classification, as well as the follow-up process. One hundred cases of previously diagnosed GT were initially evaluated by three independent, experienced researchers/clinicians to obtain a standardised classification baseline. Subsequently, nine cases of GT were selected, three cases for each category-mild, moderate and severe. These stages were professionally evaluated by 51 healthcare professionals from three groups: 17 dentists (33%), 22 oral medicine specialists (43%) and 12 specialist dermatologists (24%) during a cross-sectional survey. The quantitative and qualitative assessment based on experts' opinions in the cross-sectional survey demonstrated an acceptable, similar level of GT clinical diagnosis (p > 0.05), with coherence between the various groups of professionals critically appraising the GTASI. An apparent divergence was observed for the moderate GT category, as well as in the group of less experienced evaluators. Whilst the validation of GTASI applicability was successfully executed, the general dental practitioners, specialists in oral medicine and dermatologists were equally capable of correct GT diagnosis and appropriately rating its severity. These coherent results were especially replicated among the experienced clinicians. The validation of the newly proposed index confirmed its reliability as a feasible instrument in oral medicine, with the prospect of its wider implementation in clinical practice.

Project description:Injury-related deaths overwhelmingly occur in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Community-based injury surveillance is essential to accurately capture trauma epidemiology in LMICs, where one-third of injured individuals never present to formal care. However, community-based studies are constrained by the lack of a validated surrogate injury severity metric. The primary objective of this bipartite study was to cross-validate a novel community-based injury severity (CBS) scoring system with previously-validated injury severity metrics using multi-center trauma registry data. A set of targeted questions to ascertain injury severity in non-medical settings-the CBS test-was iteratively developed with Cameroonian physicians and laypeople. The CBS test was first evaluated in the community-setting in a large household-based injury surveillance survey in southwest Cameroon. The CBS test was subsequently incorporated into the Cameroon Trauma Registry, a prospective multi-site national hospital-based trauma registry, and cross-validated in the hospital setting using objective injury metrics in patients presenting to four trauma hospitals. Among 8065 surveyed household members with 503 injury events, individuals with CBS indicators (CBS+) were more likely to report ongoing disability after injury compared to CBS- individuals (OR 1.9, p = 0.004), suggesting the CBS test is a promising injury severity proxy. In 9575 injured patients presenting for formal evaluation, the CBS test strongly predicted death in patients after controlling for age, sex, socioeconomic status, and injury type (OR 30.26, p<0.0001). Compared to established injury severity scoring systems, the CBS test comparably predicts mortality (AUC: 0.8029), but is more feasible to calculate in both the community and clinical contexts. The CBS test is a simple, valid surrogate metric of injury severity that can be deployed widely in community-based surveys to improve estimates of injury severity in under-resourced settings.

Dataset Information

Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring system.

Publications

Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring system.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets