Home  |  About us  |  Editorial board  |  Current issue  |  Archives  |  Submit article  |  Instructions |  Search  |   Subscribe  |  Advertise  |  Contacts  |  Login 
  Users Online: 1117Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  

 Table of Contents      
RESEARCH METHDOLOGY
Year : 2011  |  Volume : 2  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 137-144

Patient-reported outcomes: A new era in clinical research


Department of Pharmacy Practice, Manipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Manipal, India

Date of Web Publication31-Oct-2011

Correspondence Address:
Prasanna R Deshpande
Department of Pharmacy Practice, Manipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Manipal University, Manipal - 576 104
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2229-3485.86879

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 

Now-a-days there is significant discussion about patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in medical world. The following article covers almost all the areas of PRO including-their importance, important concepts for understanding of PRO, significance, ideal properties, types, development and evaluation of PRO instruments. It is useful for physicians, pharmacists and patients for the assessment and improvement of the therapy.

Keywords: Patient reported outcomes, clinical research, PRO, quality of life


How to cite this article:
Deshpande PR, Rajan S, Sudeepthi B L, Abdul Nazir C P. Patient-reported outcomes: A new era in clinical research. Perspect Clin Res 2011;2:137-44

How to cite this URL:
Deshpande PR, Rajan S, Sudeepthi B L, Abdul Nazir C P. Patient-reported outcomes: A new era in clinical research. Perspect Clin Res [serial online] 2011 [cited 2017 Jul 25];2:137-44. Available from: http://www.picronline.org/text.asp?2011/2/4/137/86879


   Introduction Top


'Patient' can be considered as the centre for any healthcare system. Now-a-days there is growing realization for the patient-centered healthcare system. [1] The outcomes of a clinical intervention obtained by the patient i.e. patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are seemed to be of more importance in future than any other outcomes like clinical, physiological or caregiver-reported. As per studies, enhanced treatment adherence and outcomes can be obtained by giving attention to patient feedback on healthcare outcomes and patient behavior change. [2]

As per US-FDA, a PRO is any report of the status of a patient's health condition that comes directly from the patient, without interpretation of the patient's response by a clinician or anyone else. [3]


   Importance of PRO Top


Though medical technology allows to measure physical, physiological or biochemical data of the patient; it is not able to give all the data about the treatment or the disease. Some data can be obtained only from the patient. Such data includes the things as mentioned in [Table 1]. [4]
Table 1: Data can only be obtained from the patient

Click here to view


In short, patient can tell many things like thoughts, complaints, opinions that technology or any observer can't and which is actually more valuable. As discussed earlier PRO are the measurements come directly from the patient. Further to add, in some diseases survival is not the ultimate goal of the treatment but quality of life also plays an essential role in the treatment. E.g. Cancer chemotherapy. [5] Therefore, PROs are gaining the importance in clinical world.


   PRO and Other Types of Outcomes Top


The outcomes are broadly classified into- clinical (e.g. cure, survival), humanistic (e.g. role performance, emotional status) and economical (e.g. expenses, saving). [6] In clinical scenario the outcomes can be clinician reported (e.g. performance of the patient), caregiver reported (e.g. functional status), physiologic (e.g. tumor size by using MRI) or patient reported (e.g. symptoms). If the patient is observed for the outcomes by clinician, researcher or caregiver then the outcomes become observer reported outcomes (OROs). [4] If the patient is revealing in the written questionnaire that he/she is experiencing morning stiffness is PRO but if the clinician is asking to describe about the morning stiffness i.e. severity and nature is considered to be ORO.

Proxy reported outcome is a measurement based on the reportby someone other than the patient reporting as if he or she is the patient. It is different from a PRO or ORO. [3]


   Difference Between Symptoms and Health Related Quality of Life Top


Although symptoms of the patient and health related quality of life (HRQOL) hear to be similar, they are the two different concepts. Symptom is a one-dimensional property while HRQOL is multidimensional. Symptoms are often main objective of treatment, mirror clinician-patient discourse and vary dynamically with time but in case of HRQOL all the above things are rarely. Symptoms are directly related to disease and treatment effect while there is indirect relation of them with HRQOL. In case of PRO concepts symptoms are often considered for behavioral objective measure but seldom for HRQOL. Complexity of the concepts is complex in HRQOL and simple in case of symptoms. [7]


   Important Concepts Top


Prior to know about PRO one should be familiar with the following concepts:

PRO instrument

A PRO instrument (i.e., a questionnaireplus the information and documentation that support its use) is a means to capture PRO data used to measure treatment benefitor risk in medical product clinical trials. [3]

PRO concept

It is nothing but the thing or event being measured. It can be called as the specific goal of the instrument. [3]

e.g. symptom or group of symptoms

PRO domain

A subconcept represented by a score of an instrument that measures a larger concept comprised of multiple domains. [3]

e.g. depression

PRO item

An individual question, statement, or task (and its standardized response options) that is evaluated by the patient to address a particular concept. [3]

e.g. Are you feeling depressed?

Conceptual framework

The conceptual framework explicitly defines the concepts measured by the instrument in a diagram that presents a description of the relationships between items, domain (sub-concepts) and concepts measured and the scores produced by a PRO instrument [Figure 1]. [3]
Figure 1: Conceptual framework in PRO instrument

Click here to view


Endpoint

The measurement that will be statistically compared among treatment groups to assess the effect of treatment and that corresponds with the clinical trial's objectives, design, and data analysis. [3]

End point model

A diagram of the hierarchy of relationships among all endpoints, both PRO and non-PRO, that corresponds to the clinical trial's objectives, design, and data analysis plan [Figure 2]. [3]
Figure 2: End-point model

Click here to view


Conceptual equivalence

It is the equivalence in relevance and meaning of the concepts being measured in different languages and /or cultures. [8]

Health Related Quality of Life

In simple words HRQOL can be defined as personal health status of the individual. [9] Actually, it is a multi-domain concept which represents the patient's general perception of the effect of illness and treatment on various aspects of life such as physical, psychological, and social. [3] Some other aspects also can be predicted to affect HRQOL like- economical, disease symptoms, adverse drug reactions, patient-education, disease-treatment given to the patient [Figure 3].
Figure 3: Factors affecting health related quality of life

Click here to view



   Ideal Properties of PRO Instrument Top


As per the literature, [3],[9] following ideal properties can be extracted-

  • It should be specific to the concept being measured.
  • It should be based on end-point model.
  • It should have conceptual equivalence.
  • It should be based on the conceptual framework.
  • It should contain optimum number of items.
  • It should have easy and specific measurement properties i.e. use of the scales which is easiest for the intended population to understand.
  • It should have proper evidences for the conceptual framework.
  • It should maintain the confidentiality of the patient.
  • It should be reproducible.



   Significance of PRO Instruments Top


By using PRO, various types of outcomes can be measured such as physical functions, symptoms, global judgments of health, psychological well-being, social well-being, cognitive functioning, role activities, personal constructs, satisfaction with care, [10] health related quality of life (HRQOL), [11] adherence to medical regimens [12] and clinical trial outcomes. [10]

PROs may be helpful in determination of the eligibility of the patient for certain clinical trials. E.g. Inclusion criterion for the trial is female patients with hot flashes. PROs can be used for confirmation of the measures. E.g. patients with morning stiffness are most likely to be suffered from rheumatoid disease. PROs can help to interpret other measures and also help to eliminate other possibilities. E.g. If the patient has breathlessness and the patient is a smoker then COPD can be expected rather than anemia. PROs are useful in determination of patient compliance or reasons for non-compliance. E.g. Are the side effects so severe? PROs may be used as study endpoint. E.g. Efficacy of analgesic drug by determining pain levels. [4]

In diseases like cancer it is important to determine the quality of life of the patient as patients with progression of cancer frequently experience multiple symptoms, economical burden, home management problems and lack of emotional well-being, all of which can adversely affect quality of life. [13] PROs are helpful in the determination of quality of life in cancer patients. Role of QOL/PROs in cancer care can be considered in the following conditions like [14]

  • Determination of negative effects of the adjuvant therapy
  • Identification of the needs for the supportive care
  • Comparison of two standard therapies having similar survival outcomes
  • Identification of negative effects of the therapy when survival time is long
  • To find out whether a new therapy is preferable to standard therapy
  • To determine whether a therapeutic regimen is better than supportive care only, when survival time is short
  • Targeting problems and making the communication easier in clinical practice


As PRO instruments are based upon the scores obtained by the patient without any interpretation; it gives a clear picture about the patient condition. PROs are useful for the patients, patient-family members and loved ones, healthcare providers, payers, regulatory authorities, technological assessors and researchers. PROs are beneficial for the patients as he/she asks for and experience the treatment. It is useful for patient family members and loved ones as they desire the best for the patient and themselves. The PRO data is also useful for healthcare providers and payers as they make a decision with patients on prescribing of treatments/therapy and pay for the treatment respectively. Information obtained from PRO can also be used by regulatory authorities (e.g. FDA) and technology assessors [e.g. National institute for health and clinical excellence (NICE)]. PRO studies make the consequences of the studies accessible through various publications like formulary submission dossiers, direct to consumer advertisements, journals and continuing medical educations (CME). [9],[15],[16]

Conclusively, PROs are unique indicators of impact of disease on the patient, helpful in empowerment of the patients, necessary for determination of efficacy of the treatment, by communication helpful in creating a rapport between patient and healthcare providers, useful in the interpretation of clinical outcomes and treatment decision making. [9]


   Types of PRO Instruments Top


Broadly, PRO instruments can be classified as per the measurement of the interested concept as [10],[17]

  • Generic (anticipated to detain a very wide variety of aspects of health status and the outcomes of illness and hence to be applicable to a wide range of patient groups) e.g. Psychological General Well-Being Index (PGWBI)
  • Disease specific e.g. Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality of Life questionnaire (RAQoL)
  • Dimension specific e.g. Physical Activity Index (PAI)
  • Region/site specific e.g. Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR)
  • Individualized (instruments in which the respondent is allowed to select issues, concerns or domains of personal concern that are not predetermined by the investigator's list of questionnaire items) e.g. Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life (SEIQoL)
  • Utility measures (considered as generic type but with one particular form of numerical evaluation of healthiness) e.g. Utility measure for major, unipolar depression (McSad)
  • Summary items e.g. questions (regarding limiting enduring illness) in General Household Survey

    All types of PROs have their own advantages and disadvantages.



   Development of PRO Instrument Top


As per US-FDA, [3] [Figure 4] there are five steps for the development of a PRO instrument. First, there will be theorization of a conceptual network. It may include outlining of potential claims and hypothesized concepts, determination of intended population and application i.e. scores, mode and frequency of administration, performance of expert/literature review, development of the framework, assignment of PROs in preliminary endpoint model and documentation of the preliminary instrument.
Figure 4: Development of PRO instrument

Click here to view


The second step may include finding of the patient inputs, making of new items, assortment of recall period, response options and format, selection of mode of administration and data collection, conduction of patient cognitive discussion, pilot testing of the outlined instrument and documentation of content validity.

Third step may include the following-confirmation, assessment and finalization of the instrument, documentation of measurement progress. In assessment of the score reliability, construct validity and ability to detect change will be done.

Fourth step may contain- preparation of protocol and SAP (statistical analysis plan), compilation and analysis of data, assessment of treatment response (by means of responder definition and cumulative distribution), documentation of interpretation of treatment advantage (in relation to claim).

Fifth and last step in the development of the instrument is modification of the instrument which include- altering of phrasing of items, population response options and mode of administration, translation and culturally adaptation of the instrument, evaluation and documentation of the changes.


   Administration of PRO Instrument and Data Collection Top


Data collection by using a PRO instrument can be done in three ways [3] as by interview, self administration or combination of both. Live interviews may happen in person or by means of communication medium. Every method has its own positive and negative aspects. [4]


   Response Scales Top


It is a set of answer choices that fall into an order e.g. from highest to lowest. A scale may be composed of pictures, numbers or categories. [4] Following types of response scales or options may be used in a PRO instrument. [3] The response scales are mentioned with example in the [Table 2].
Table 2: Types of response scales

Click here to view


Recording of events is also one of the methods to determine the response that can be included by the patient. E.g. dairy maintained by the patient for the episodes of urination in night.


   Evaluation of PRO Top


For the evaluation of a PRO instrument following things may be checked [3]

  • Validity

    Content validity

    Construct validity

    Criterion validity
  • Reliability

    Test-retest or intra-interviewer reliability

    Internal consistency

    Inter-interviewer variability
  • Ability to detect change


Validity

It is the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores entailed by the proposed uses of tests. [18] Validity is not the property of the instrument i.e. PRO instrument but of instrument scores and their interpretations. [18],[19] Therefore, validity must be established for all proposed interpretation.

Content validity

It is the extent to which the instrument measures the concept of interest. [3] Content validity of the instrument can be performed qualitatively as well as quantitatively. [20] According to US-FDA(1), following attributes can be checked- item generation, data collection method and instrument administration mode, recall period, response options, instrument format instruction and training, patient cognition, scoring items and domains, respondent and administrator burden. The instrument should have proper evidence in the literature linking between concept being measured by the instrument and targeted claims. [3],[20] Quantitative analysis of the items is also desirable and helpful. [20] E.g. evaluation of how well items deal with complete continuum of patient experiences. Item response theory (IRT) and Rasch analysis can be used to evaluate item information curves and what fraction of the response continuum items address. [21],[22]

IRT is a powerful tool for the evaluation of the questionnaire (PRO instrument) both at item and scale levels and tailors use of the same to the patients. [23] Some important methodological considerations for IRT modeling are [24]

  • Should IRT methods be used by the researcher for the questionnaire?
  • Which IRT model should be used?
  • What sample size is needed for IRT analysis?


Rasch model is the only IRT model in which a person is characterized totally by the total score across the questions/items. Further to add, it is the simplest of such models having least number of the parameters for the person and only one constraint for each category of an item. It may be used to verify the degree to which scoring and summing is justifiable in the collected data and how well the information fit in the model. [25]

Construct validity

It is defined as evidence that relationships among concepts, domains and items conform to a priori hypotheses concerning logical relationships that should exist with other measures or characteristics of patients and patient groups. [3] It includes convergent, divergent and known groups' validity. In construct validity, measures of constructs theoretically should be related to each other and should in fact observe to be related to each other. In the similar way, in discriminant validity, one should be able to discriminate between dissimilar constructs. [26] In known groups' validity, evidence for the thing that the instrument can differentiate between clinically distinct groups is checked. [3]

Criterion validity

It is nothing but the extent to which the scores of a PRO instrument are related to a known gold standard measure of the same concept. [3]

Here, the performance of the operationalization is checked against some criterion. In content validity, the criteria are the construct definition itself i.e. it is the direct judgment while in criterion validity, often there is a prediction about how the operationalization will perform based on the theory of construct. It may be of two types as "predictive" and "concurrent". In the former one there is assessment of the ability to predict something in the real world which is present theoretically. For instance, if there is measurement of slowness of movement in Parkinson's disease, we could give our measure to the respective patients and see if there is a high correlation between the scores and the degree of slowness. The presence of high correlation makes available an evidence for "predictive validity". In concurrent validity, there is assessment of the ability of the item to distinguish between the groups in real world as mentioned theoretically. E.g. in the assessment of breathlessness, the item should be able to distinguish between asthma and COPD. [26]

Practically, it is difficult to determine the criterion validity as there is no gold standard for most PROs. [3]

Reliability

It is the ability of a PRO instrument to yield reproducible and consistent estimates of true treatment effect. [3] It is a necessary (but not adequate) component of validity. [27],[28] To establish the reliability of the scores before using the PRO-instrument in practice, it is necessary that there should be sufficient accrual of evidence. [29] It can be predicted by three ways as 1) test-retest reliability- it is a measure of the ability of a psychologic testing instrument to yield the same result for a single Patient at 2 different test periods, which are closely spaced so that any variation detected reflects reliability of the instrument rather than changes in the Patient's status. [30] It may be considered as intra-interviewer reliability for interviewer administered PROs. This type of reliability is checked by intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). [3] As per the generic definition ICC is the ratio of true variance i.e. the variability between the targets and observed variance i.e. the total variance-true variance plus other variance.Time period between test and retest is an important factor here. 2) Internal consistency-The consistency of the results delivered in a test, ensuring that the various items measuring the different constructs deliver consistent scores. [31] Internal consistency is determined with Cronbach's alpha. Cronbach's alpha is coefficient of reliability. [32] It is defined as [33]



Where, K = the number of items

= the variance of the observed total test scores

= the variance of component i for the current sample of persons

The α value theoretically ranges from 0 to 1. The value of ≥0.7 is considered to be optimum. Item-total correlation is yet another test that may be considered for internal consistency. It is the measure of the association between an item and the total score from the set of the items within the scale. [34] It can be measured by using Pearson correlation coefficient. If the value of the Pearson correlation coefficient is high then stronger is the relationship between the items. 3) Inter-interviewer reliability - It determines the changes in the results when the instrument is administered by two or more interviewers. It is generally measured by Pearson's 'r' value.

Ability to detect the change

It is considered to be an important part in the evaluation of PRO instrument. The instrument should be able to detect the changes in the expected outcomes. For instance if there is an instrument which is determining the quality of life of breast cancer patient, then it should be able to predict the quality of life after the treatment. The quality of life score should be able to predict the improvement/stability in condition/worsening. Ability of the instrument to detect the changes may be affected by the various factors as per the type and concept to be determined. [3]


   Electronic PRO Top


Here the outcomes of the patients are collected by using electronic methods like electronic diaries, computers, telephones etc. The use of Electronic PRO (e-PRO) are found to be beneficial than paper based PRO. [35] e-PROs avoid data entry errors, give immediate access to data, enable to trigger alerts/notifications, reduce the missing information as compared to paper-based PRO, increase patient's willingness to report sensitive information. Further to add, data obtained from e-PRO gives real-time tracking of survey compliance. Some important barriers in use of e-PRO are- increased expense, limited time for patient-training and infrastructure study site. There may be some cultural resistance for the administration of electronic instrument. [36]

The use of e-PRO was found to successful in various recent clinical trials. [37],[38]


   Summary Top


  • Important concepts to be known - PRO, Concept, Domain, Item, End-point model, Conceptual framework, Conceptual equivalence, HRQOL
  • Ideal properties of PRO instrument - Concept specific, End-point model, Based on conceptual framework, Optimum number of items, Reproducibility, Easy accessibility of scales by patients, Availability of proper evidence, Conceptual equivalence, Maintenance of confidentiality.
  • Types of PRO instruments - Generic, Disease specific, Dimension specific, Region specific, individualized, Utility measures, Survey items
  • Development of PRO instrument- (Steps)
    • Theorization of a conceptual framework;
    • Adjustment of the conceptual framework and outlining instrument;
    • Authentication of the framework and evaluation of further measurement properties;
    • Assemble, examine and interpret data;
    • Adapt the PRO instrument
  • Types of response scales - Likert scale, visual analog scale (VAS), Anchored VAS, Pictorial scale, Rating scale, Checklist
  • Evaluation of PRO instrument-
    • Validity - Content, Construct, Criterion;
    • Reliability - Test-retest reliability, internal consistency, inter-interviewer reliability
    • Ability to detect change


 
   References Top

1.International Alliance of Patients' Organizations. What is Patient-centred Health Care? A Review of Definitions and Principles, 2 nd ed. London:IAPO;2007. p. 1-34.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Institute of Medicine, Crossing the Quality Chasm-A New Health System for the 21 st Century, 1 st Ed. Washington, DC:National Academies Press;2001  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.U.S Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Guidance for Industry: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. U.S. FDA, Clinical/Medical 2009 available form: [http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf]. [Last Accessed on2011 Apr 20].  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Chin R, Lee BY. Economics and patient reported outcomes, Principles and practice of clinical trial medicine, London, Amsterdam, Burlington, San Diego:Elsevier Inc;2008 p.145-66.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Singh DP. Quality of life in cancer patients receiving palliative care. Indian J Palliat Care 2010;16:36-43.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
6.Kozma CM, Reeder CE, Schulz RM. Economic, clinical, and humanistic outcomes: a planning model for pharmacoeconomic research. ClinTher 1993;15:1121-32; discussion 1120.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.ShieldsA, Gwaltney C, Paty J, Shiffman S. Distinguishing Among Symptom vs. Health Related Quality of Life PRO Concepts: Developing a Conceptual Framework August 22, 2006.Available from;http://www.invivodata.com/media/files/PRO%20Consulting_White%20Paper_Symptoms%20and%20HRQOL.pdf. [Last Accessed on 2011 May 20]  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Pashos CL, Klein EG,Wanke LA (editors). ISPOR Lexicon™. Princeton: International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research . NJ 1998.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Acquadro C, Berzon R, Dubois D, Leidy NK, Marquis P, Revicki D, et al. Incorporating the Patient's Perspective into Drug Development and Communication: An Ad Hoc Task Force Report of the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group Meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value Health2003;6:522-31.  Back to cited text no. 9
[PUBMED]    
10.Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 1998;2:1-74.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.Chen H, Taichman DB, Doyle RL. Health-related quality of life and patient-reported outcomes in pulmonary arterial hypertension.Proc Am ThoracSoc 2008;5:623-30.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Chao J, Nau DP, Aikens JE. Patient-reported perceptions of side effects of antihyperglycemic medication and adherence to medication regimens in persons with diabetes mellitus.clinTher 2007;29:177-80.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.Miller R,Walsh D. Psychosocial aspects of palliative care in advanced cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage 1991;6:24-9.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.Yarbro CH, Wujcik D, Gobel BH. Quality of life as an outcome in cancer care. Cancer Nursing: Principles and Practice. Sudbury, Ontario, London; John and Bartlett;2011. p. 201-18.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.Assessing and reporting outcomes important to patients in clinical trials and Cochrane reviews XV Cochrane collaboration 25 Oct. 2007 by Donald L. Patrick. Available from:http://www.colloquiumbrasil.info/program/public/documents/plenary_2b_patrick-151949.pdf. [Last Accessed on 2011 June 1].  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.Willke RJ. Measuring the value of treatment to patients: Patient-reported outcomes in drug development. Am Health Drug Benefits 2008;1:34-40.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.Patient reported outcomes quality of life outcomes instruments database. Mapi research institute. Available from: http://www.proqolid.org/proqolid/search__1/alphabetical_list[Last Accessed on 2011 Apr 1].  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC:American Educational Research Association; 1999.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.Messick S. Validity. In: Linn RL, editor. Educational Measurement,3rd Ed. New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan;1989.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.Assessing Respondent Understanding of Newly-Developed Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Instruments for Medical Product Evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices on Establishing and Reporting Evidence of Content Validity Task Force Report - Part IIAvailable from: www.ispor.org/taskforces/.../ISPOR-PRO-CV-TF-2-Assessing-for-Understanding-for-REVIEW.pdf [Last Accessed on 2001 Mar 25].  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.Andrich D. Rasch models for measurement. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications; 1988.   Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.Hambleton R, Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ. Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Press; 1991.   Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.Bryce Reeve, Ph.D. Applications of Item Response Theory (IRT) Modeling for Building and Evaluating Questionnaires Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes. Available from:  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.http://www.outcomes.cancer.gov/conference/irt/reeve.pdf [Last accessed on 2011 Jul 15].  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.BB Reeve, P Fayers. Applying item response theory modeling for evaluating questionnaire item and scale properties. Available from:fds.oup.com/www.oup.com/pdf/13/9780198527695.pdf. [Last Accessed on 2011 May 25].  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.Rasch Analysis RUMM2020 is the Trademark of RUMMLaboratory Pty Ltd.Available from: http://www.rasch-analysis.com/rasch-measurement.htm[Last accessed on 2011 Jul 15].  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.Research methods knowledge base. Available from:http://www.socialresearchmethods.netLast Revised: 10/20/2006. [Last accessed on 2011 Mar 27]  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.Downing SM. Validity: On the meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Med Educ 2003;37:830-7.   Back to cited text no. 28
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
29.Feldt LS, Brennan RL. Reliability. In: Linn RL, editor. Educational Measurement, 3rd Ed. New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan; 1989.   Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.CookDA, BeckmanTJ. Current Concepts in Validity and Reliability for Psychometric Instruments: Theory and Application.Am J Med2006;119:166.e7-166.e16.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.Farlex. Huntington Valley, PA: Farlex; The Free Dictionary. Dictionary/Thesaurus >test-retest reliability [Web definition] Available on: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/test-retest+reliability. Accessed 20 Aug 2011  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.Internal consistency reliability. Available from: http://www.experiment-resources.com/internal-consistency-reliability.html. [Last Accessed on 2011 Mar 30].  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951;16:297-334.   Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.Devellis RF. Scale Development Theory and Applications, London. Sage Publications, 1991. p. 24-33.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.Key terms, abbreviations, and definitions. Available from:http://outcomes.cancer.gov/conference/irt/key_terms.pdf. [Last Accessed on 2011 Mar 30].  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.Coons SJ, Gwaltney CJ, Hays RD, Lundy JJ, Sloan JA, RevickiDA, et al. ISPOR ePRO Task Force. Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient reported outcome (PRO) measure: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force Report. Value Health 2009;12:419-29.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.Prescribing Information Climara Pro® (Estradiol/Levonorgestrel Transdermal System) Available from: http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?id=10549#nlm34076-0. [Last Accessed on 2011 Jul 15].  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.Kearney N, McCann L, Norrie J, Taylor L, Gray P, McGee-Lennon M, et al. Evaluation of a mobile phone-based, advanced symptom management system (ASyMS) in the management of chemotherapy-related toxicity. Support Care Cancer 2009;17:437-44.  Back to cited text no. 38
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]


This article has been cited by
1 Impact of daclizumab versus interferon beta-1a on patient-reported outcomes in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis
Ying Liu,Timothy Vollmer,Eva Havrdova,Katherine Riester,Andrew Lee,Glenn Phillips,Ping Wang,Guido Sabatella
Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders. 2017; 11: 18
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Patient-reported outcome measures and qualitative research in dermatology: the quest for authenticity
C.J. Apfelbacher,P.A. Nelson
British Journal of Dermatology. 2017; 176(2): 285
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Predictors of Health-Related Quality of Life in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy from six European countries
Christiane Otto,Birgit F. Steffensen,Ann-Lisbeth Højberg,Claus Barkmann,Jes Rahbek,Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer,Annette Mahoney,Julia Vry,Kathrin Gramsch,Rachel Thompson,Sunil Rodger,Kate Bushby,Hanns Lochmüller,Janbernd Kirschner
Journal of Neurology. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 Social correlates of health status, quality of life, and mood states in patients treated with cannabidiol for epilepsy
Magdalena Szaflarski,Barbara Hansen,E. Martina Bebin,Jerzy P. Szaflarski
Epilepsy & Behavior. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
5 Decreased health-related quality of life in angiodysplasia patients: A cross-sectional cohort
Karina V. Grooteman,Mijntje Matheeuwsen,Erwin J. M. van Geenen,Joost P. H. Drenth,John Green
PLOS ONE. 2017; 12(5): e0177522
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
6 Health-Related Quality of Life in Primary Care: Which Aspects Matter in Multimorbid Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in a Community Setting?
Martina Kamradt,Johannes Krisam,Marion Kiel,Markus Qreini,Werner Besier,Joachim Szecsenyi,Dominik Ose,Iratxe Puebla
PLOS ONE. 2017; 12(1): e0170883
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
7 Feasibility and Psychometric Properties of the Adjusted DSWAL-QoL Questionnaire for Dysphagic Patients with Additional Language and/or Cognitive Impairment: Part I
Ingeborg S. Simpelaere,Jan Vanderwegen,Kristien Wouters,Marc De Bodt,Gwen Van Nuffelen
Dysphagia. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
8 A Systematic Review of Measurement Properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Used in Patients Undergoing Total Knee Arthroplasty
Joel J. Gagnier,Megan Mullins,Hsiaomin Huang,Danica Marinac-Dabic,Anna Ghambaryan,Benjamin Eloff,Faisal Mirza,Manuel Bayona
The Journal of Arthroplasty. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
9 The prevalence and impact of chronic neuropathic pain on daily and social life: A nationwide study in a Japanese population
S. Inoue,T. Taguchi,T. Yamashita,M. Nakamura,T. Ushida
European Journal of Pain. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
10 Performance of PROMIS Instruments in Patients With Shoulder Instability
Chris A. Anthony,Natalie A. Glass,Kyle Hancock,Matt Bollier,Brian R. Wolf,Carolyn M. Hettrich
The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2017; 45(2): 449
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
11 The effects of exercise on pain, fatigue, insomnia, and health perceptions in patients with operable advanced stage rectal cancer prior to surgery: a pilot trial
Jennifer Brunet,Shaunna Burke,Michael P.W. Grocott,Malcolm A. West,Sandy Jack
BMC Cancer. 2017; 17(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
12 Association Between the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index
Brian Pietrosimone,Brittney A. Luc,Austin Duncan,Susan A. Saliba,Joseph M. Hart,Christopher D. Ingersoll
Journal of Athletic Training. 2017; 52(6): 526
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
13 The emerging role of anamorelin hydrochloride in the management of patients with cancer anorexia-cachexia
David C Currow,Richard JE Skipworth
Future Oncology. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
14 The assessment of patient clinical outcome: A literature discussion
MouæathA Hourani,NidalM Turab,QusaiY Shambour
Annals of Tropical Medicine and Public Health. 2017; 10(2): 321
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
15 Predicting Falls Among Patients With Multiple Sclerosis: Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes and Performance-Based Measures of Lower Extremity Functions
Shirin Tajali,Mohammad-Jafar Shaterzadeh-Yazdi,Hossein Negahban,Jaap H. van Dieën,Mohammad Mehravar,Nastaran Majdinasab,Amal Saki-Malehis,Razie Mofateh
Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
16 Management of aromatase inhibitor induced musculoskeletal symptoms in postmenopausal early Breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Kate Roberts,Kirsty Rickett,Ristan Greer,Natasha Woodward
Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology. 2017; 111: 66
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
17 Chemotherapy completion in elderly women with ovarian, primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer – An NRG oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group study
Vivian E. von Gruenigen,Helen Q. Huang,Jan H. Beumer,Heather A. Lankes,William Tew,Thomas Herzog,Arti Hurria,Robert S. Mannel,Tina Rizack,Lisa M. Landrum,Peter G. Rose,Ritu Salani,William H. Bradley,Thomas J. Rutherford,Robert V. Higgins,Angeles Alvarez Secord,Gini Fleming
Gynecologic Oncology. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
18 Translation and validation of the 15-item Myasthenia Gravis Quality of life scale in Dutch
Ellen Strijbos,Fania R. Gärtner,Jan J. Verschuuren
Muscle & Nerve. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
19 A prospective study to validate the Polish language version of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Colorectal Liver Metastases (QLQ-LMC21) module
Dominika Paradowska,Krzysztof Bereza,Beatrice Sanna,Ewa Kucharska,Iwona M. Tomaszewska,Zbigniew Dudkiewicz,Piotr Skotnicki,Andrew Bottomley,Krzysztof A. Tomaszewski
European Journal of Oncology Nursing. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
20 Improving Outcomes in Patients with CRC: The Role of Patient Reported Outcomes—An ESDO Report
Eric Van Cutsem,Aimery De Gramont,Geoffrey Henning,Philippe Rougier,Franck Bonnetain,Thomas Seufferlein
Cancers. 2017; 9(6): 59
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
21 Evidence-based prevention and treatment of osteoporosis after spinal cord injury: a systematic review
Saeed Soleyman-Jahi,Ali Yousefian,Radin Maheronnaghsh,Farhad Shokraneh,Shayan Abdollah Zadegan,Akbar Soltani,Seyed Mostafa Hosseini,Alexander R. Vaccaro,Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar
European Spine Journal. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
22 Patient-Reported Outcomes of Chemotherapy Involving Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Evaluation by Questionnaires of Quality of Life Regarding Anti-Aging and Anti-Cancer Drugs
Takanori Ayabe,Masaki Tomita,Takashi Asada,Kazuyo Tsuchiya,Manabu Nemoto,Kunihide Nakamura
Advances in Lung Cancer. 2017; 06(02): 13
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
23 Impact of targeted therapies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma on patient-reported outcomes: Methodology of clinical trials and clinical benefit
M. Dos Santos,P.E. Brachet,C. Chevreau,F. Joly
Cancer Treatment Reviews. 2017; 53: 53
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
24 Important clinical descriptors to include in the examination and assessment of patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: an international and multi-disciplinary Delphi survey
M. P. Reiman,K. Thorborg,K. Covington,C. E. Cook,P. Hölmich
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
25 Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in the immediate post–bariatric surgery care of patients with obstructive sleep apnea: a systematic review
Solomon Tong,Jonathan Gower,Austin Morgan,Kyle Gadbois,Gordon Wisbach
Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
26 Are community-based nurse-led self-management support interventions effective in chronic patients? Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis
Azzurra Massimi,Corrado De Vito,Ilaria Brufola,Alice Corsaro,Carolina Marzuillo,Giuseppe Migliara,Maria Luisa Rega,Walter Ricciardi,Paolo Villari,Gianfranco Damiani,Sari Helena Räisänen
PLOS ONE. 2017; 12(3): e0173617
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
27 The Methods for Foot Function Index and Foot and Ankle Outcome Score Measurement: A Comparison between Paper-and-Pencil Method and Electronic Method
Ji-Beom Kim,Min-Soo Kwon,Jung-Gon Kim,Young Yi,Woo-Chun Lee,Jeong-Ku Ha,Suk-Hwan Jang
Journal of Korean Foot and Ankle Society. 2017; 21(1): 33
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
28 Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test for Children (CARATKids)
Rita Amaral,Ana C. Carneiro,Gustavo Wandalsen,João A. Fonseca,Dirceu Sole
Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. 2017; 118(5): 551
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
29 Patient perceptions of physician-documented quality care in epilepsy
Lidia M.V.R. Moura,Thiago S. Carneiro,Emily L. Thorn,Michael P. Seitz,John Hsu,Andrew J. Cole,Barbara G. Vickrey,Daniel B. Hoch
Epilepsy & Behavior. 2016; 62: 90
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
30 Perception of parents and caregivers regarding the impact of malocclusion on adolescents’ quality of life: a cross-sectional study
Lucas Guimarães Abreu,Camilo Aquino Melgaço,Mauro Henrique Abreu,Elizabeth Maria Bastos Lages,Saul Martins Paiva
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics. 2016; 21(6): 74
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
31 Illness perception in patients with androgenetic alopecia and alopecia areata in China
Nan-Lan Yu,Huan Tan,Zhi-Qiang Song,Xi-Chuan Yang
Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 2016; 86: 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
32 Engaging stakeholders into an electronic patient-reported outcome development study: On making an HIV-specific e-PRO patient-centered
Kim Engler,David Lessard,Isabelle Toupin,Andràs Lènàrt,Bertrand Lebouché
Health Policy and Technology. 2016;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
33 Reliability of the revised scoliosis research society22 and oswestry disability index (ODI) questionnaires in adult spinal deformity when administered by telephone
Steven L. Bokshan,Jakub Godzik,Jonathan Dalton,Jennifer Jaffe,Lawrence G. Lenke,Michael P. Kelly
The Spine Journal. 2016;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
34 Quantifying clinical change: discrepancies between patients’ and providers’ perspectives
Rachel P. Dreyer,Philip G. Jones,Shelby Kutty,John A. Spertus
Quality of Life Research. 2016;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
35 How to Evaluate Health-Related Quality of Life and Its Association with Medication Adherence in Pulmonary Tuberculosis – Designing a Prospective Observational Study in South Africa
Tanja Kastien-Hilka,Bernd Rosenkranz,Bryan Bennett,Edina Sinanovic,Matthias Schwenkglenks
Frontiers in Pharmacology. 2016; 7
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
36 Recruiting 9126 Primary Care Patients by Telephone: Characteristics of Participants Reached on Landlines, Basic Cell Phones, and Smartphones
Mirsada Serdarevic,Tera L. Fazzino,Charles D. MacLean,Gail L. Rose,John E. Helzer
Population Health Management. 2016; 19(3): 212
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
37 Subjective outcome of 166 tension-free vaginal tape procedures performed by a single surgeon: the Braemar experience
Jose D. Roman
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2016;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
38 Cross-cultural adaptation and multi-centric validation of the Italian version of the Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS)
Alberto Vascellari,Pietro Spennacchio,Alberto Combi,Alberto Grassi,Silvio Patella,Salvatore Bisicchia,Gian Luigi Canata,Stefano Zaffagnini
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2016;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
39 Improvements in Patient Reported Sexual Function after Microsurgical Varicocelectomy
Bobby B. Najari,Leonard Introna,Darius A. Paduch
Urology. 2016;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
40 Patient-reported and proxy-reported outcome measures for the assessment of health-related quality of life among patients receiving enteral feeding
Ingeborg Simpelaere,Anne White,Geertruida E. Bekkering,Bart Geurden,Gwen Van Nuffelen,Marc De Bodt
JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports. 2016; 14(7): 45
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
41 Patient-reported long-term outcome after primary hypospadias repair
Ann Nozohoor Ekmark,Einar Arnbjörnsson,Henry Svensson,Emma Hansson
Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery. 2016; : 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
42 Efficacy of menopausal hormone therapy on sleep quality: systematic review and meta-analysis
Dahima Cintron,Melissa Lipford,Laura Larrea-Mantilla,Gabriela Spencer-Bonilla,Robin Lloyd,Michael R. Gionfriddo,Shalak Gunjal,Ann M. Farrell,Virginia M. Miller,Mohammad Hassan Murad
Endocrine. 2016;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
43 The changing landscape of papillary thyroid cancer: Epidemiology, management, and the implications for patients
Carrie C. Lubitz,Julie A. Sosa
Cancer. 2016;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
44 The utility of patient-reported outcome measures among patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome
Kyle W. Murdock,Xin Shelley Wang,Qiuling Shi,Charles S. Cleeland,Christopher P. Fagundes,Suzanne D. Vernon
Quality of Life Research. 2016;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
45 Using Quality Improvement Principles to Enhance Long-Term Completion of Patient-Reported Outcomes after Ventral Hernia Repair
Nishant Ganesh Kumar,Adil A. Faqih,Michael P. Feng,Richard S. Miller,Richard A. Pierce,Kenneth W. Sharp,Michael D. Holzman,Benjamin K. Poulose
Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2016;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
46 Measurement of Depression in Breast Cancer Patients by Using a Mobile Application : A Feasibility and Reliability Study
Yoojin Sim,Guiyun Sohn,Byung Ho Son,Sei Hyun Ahn,Jong Won Lee,Yong-Wook Shin
Journal of Korean Neuropsychiatric Association. 2016; 55(3): 234
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
47 Readability and Comprehension of the Geriatric Depression Scale and PROMIS® Physical Function Items in Older African Americans and Latinos
Sylvia H. Paz,Loretta Jones,José L. Calderón,Ron D. Hays
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. 2016;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
48 Implementing a patient-initiated review system for people with rheumatoid arthritis: a prospective, comparative service evaluation
Victoria A. Goodwin,Priyamvada Paudyal,Mark G. Perry,Nikki Day,Annie Hawton,Christian Gericke,Obioha C. Ukoumunne,Richard Byng
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2016; : n/a
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
49 Prospective evaluation of pain, swelling, and disability from copperhead envenomation
Brett Roth,Kapil Sharma,Nancy Onisko,Tiffany Chen
Clinical Toxicology. 2016; : 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
50 Predictors of Dysgeusia in Patients With Oropharyngeal Cancer Treated With Chemotherapy and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy
Eli Sapir,Yebin Tao,Felix Feng,Stuart Samuels,Issam El Naqa,Carol A. Murdoch-Kinch,Mary Feng,Matthew Schipper,Avraham Eisbruch
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics. 2016;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
51 Interleukin-6 and Tumor Necrosis Factor-a Are Associated with Quality of Life–Related Symptoms in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension
Lea Ann Matura,Corey E. Ventetuolo,Harold I. Palevsky,David J. Lederer,Evelyn M. Horn,Stephen C. Mathai,Diane Pinder,Christine Archer-Chicko,Emilia Bagiella,Kari E. Roberts,Russell P. Tracy,Paul M. Hassoun,Reda E. Girgis,Steven M. Kawut
Annals of the American Thoracic Society. 2015; 12(3): 370
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
52 Baclofen for alcohol dependence: Relationships between baclofen and alcohol dosing and the occurrence of major sedation
Benjamin Rolland,Julien Labreuche,Alain Duhamel,Sylvie Deheul,Sophie Gautier,Marine Auffret,Baptiste Pignon,Thomas Valin,Régis Bordet,Olivier Cottencin
European Neuropsychopharmacology. 2015; 25(10): 1631
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
53 Health-related quality of life in morphoea
N.K. Klimas,A.D. Shedd,I.H. Bernstein,H. Jacobe
British Journal of Dermatology. 2015; 172(5): 1329
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
54 Mapping the EQ-5D-5L Utility Scores: A Pilot Study in Orthopaedic Patients
Man Hung,Christine Cheng,Shirley D. Hon,Jerry Bounsanga
Open Journal of Orthopedics. 2015; 05(04): 67
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
55 Development and validation of a patient-reported outcome measure for stroke patients
Yanhong Luo,Jie Yang,Yanbo Zhang
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2015; 13(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
56 Prospective study of recovery from copperhead snake envenomation: an observational study
Eric J Lavonas,Charles J Gerardo
BMC Emergency Medicine. 2015; 15(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
57 Patient-Reported Outcomes and Total Health Care Expenditure in Prediction of Patient Satisfaction: Results From a National Study
Man Hung,Weiping Zhang,Wei Chen,Jerry Bounsanga,Christine Cheng,Jeremy D Franklin,Anthony B Crum,Maren W Voss,Shirley D Hon
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance. 2015; 1(2): e13
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
58 Patient-reported outcome measures for hip preservation surgery--a systematic review of the literature
N. Ramisetty,Y. Kwon,N. Mohtadi
Journal of Hip Preservation Surgery. 2015; 2(1): 15
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
59 Effects of inhaled ginger aromatherapy on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and health-related quality of life in women with breast cancer
Pei Lin Lua,Noor Salihah,Nik Mazlan
Complementary Therapies in Medicine. 2015; 23(3): 396
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
60 Patient reported outcome measures for visual impairment after stroke: a systematic review
Lauren R. Hepworth,Fiona J. Rowe,Robert Harper,Kathryn Jarvis,Tracey Shipman,Helen Rodgers
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2015; 13(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
61 Development and validation of patient-reported outcomes scale for hypertension
Li Zhi,Liu Qiaojun,Zhang Yanbo
International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2015; 27(5): 369
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
62 High correlation of the Oxford Knee Score with postoperative pain, but not with performance-based functioning
Ruud P. van Hove,Richard M. Brohet,Barend J. van Royen,Peter A. Nolte
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2015;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
63 Safety and tolerability of slow-release oral morphine versus methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence
Robert Hämmig,Wilfried Köhler,Karin Bonorden-Kleij,Bernd Weber,Karin Lebentrau,Toni Berthel,Lucija Babic-Hohnjec,Christian Vollmert,Doris Höpner,Najibulah Gholami,Uwe Verthein,Christian Haasen,Jens Reimer,Christian Ruckes
Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2014; 47(4): 275
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
64 Diagnosis, Bedside Manner and Comment Style are Predictive Factors in Online Ratings of Urologists
Sarah Ferrara,Wilma M. Hopman,Michael Leveridge
Urology Practice. 2014; 1(3): 117
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
65 Psychometric Comparison of the PROMIS Physical Function CAT With the FAAM and FFI for Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes
Man Hung,Judith F. Baumhauer,James W. Brodsky,Christine Cheng,Scott J. Ellis,Jeremy D. Franklin,Shirley D. Hon,Susan N. Ishikawa,L. Daniel Latt,Phinit Phisitkul,Charles L. Saltzman,Nelson F. SooHoo,Kenneth J. Hunt
Foot & Ankle International. 2014; 35(6): 592
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
66 Comparative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Systematic Review
Christina L. Goldstein,Kevin Macwan,Kala Sundararajan,Y. Raja Rampersaud
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®. 2014;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
67 A Daily Process Analysis of Physical Activity, Sedentary Behavior, and Perceived Cognitive Abilities
Patrick T. Fitzsimmons,Jaclyn P. Maher,Shawna E. Doerksen,Steriani Elavsk,Amanda L. Rebar,David E. Conroy
Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2014;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
68 Electronic Versus Paper-Based Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life Specific to HIV Disease: Reliability Study of the PROQOL-HIV Questionnaire
Martin Duracinsky,Christophe Lalanne,Cécile Goujard,Susan Herrmann,Christian Cheung-Lung,Jean-Paul Brosseau,Yannick Schwartz,Olivier Chassany
Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2014; 16(4): e115
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
69 Creating meaningful cut-scores for Neuro-QOL measures of fatigue, physical functioning, and sleep disturbance using standard setting with patients and providers
Karon F. Cook,David E. Victorson,David Cella,Benjamin D. Schalet,Deborah Miller
Quality of Life Research. 2014;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
70 Time for a Paradigm Shift With Computerized Adaptive Testing of General Physical Function Outcomes Measurements
Man Hung,Jeremy D. Franklin,Shirley D. Hon,Christine Cheng,Jillian Conrad,Charles L. Saltzman
Foot & Ankle International. 2014; 35(1): 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
71 Feasibility of Using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System in Academic Health Centers: Case Series Design on Pain Reduction After Chiropractic Care
Jeanmarie R. Burke
Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2014; 13(3): 168
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
72 Regulatory considerations for prospective patient care registries: lessons learned from the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database*
Anthony L. Asher,Matthew J. McGirt,Steven D. Glassman,Rachel Groman,Dan K. Resnick,Melissa Mehrlich,Elizabeth Spivey,Paul McCormick
Neurosurgical Focus. 2013; 34(1): E5
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
73 Power and Sample Size Determination for the Group Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes with Rasch Family Models
Myriam Blanchin,Jean-Benoit Hardouin,Francis Guillemin,Bruno Falissard,Véronique Sébille,Mauro Gasparini
PLoS ONE. 2013; 8(2): e57279
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
74 Quality of life and living arrangements for people with intellectual disability
Marco Bertelli,Luis Salvador-Carulla,Stefano Lassi,Michele Zappella,Raymond Ceccotto,David Palterer,Johan de Groef,Laura Benni,Paolo Rossi Prodi
Advances in Mental Health and Intellectual Disabilities. 2013; 7(4): 220
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
  
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
   Importance of PRO
    PRO and Other Ty...
    Difference Betwe...
   Important Concepts
    Ideal Properties...
    Significance of ...
    Types of PRO Ins...
    Development of P...
    Administration o...
   Response Scales
   Evaluation of PRO
   Electronic PRO
   Summary
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed5643    
    Printed155    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded1432    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 74    

Recommend this journal