↓ Skip to main content

Establishing clinical meaning and defining important differences for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) measures in juvenile idiopathic arthritis using standard…

Overview of attention for article published in Quality of Life Research, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
Establishing clinical meaning and defining important differences for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) measures in juvenile idiopathic arthritis using standard setting with patients, parents, and providers
Published in
Quality of Life Research, December 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11136-016-1468-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Esi M. Morgan, Constance A. Mara, Bin Huang, Kimberly Barnett, Adam C. Carle, Jennifer E. Farrell, Karon F. Cook

Abstract

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures are used increasingly in clinical care. However, for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), scores lack a framework for interpretation of clinical severity, and minimally important differences (MID) have not been established, which are necessary to evaluate the importance of change. We identified clinical severity thresholds for pediatric PROMIS measures of mobility, upper extremity function (UE), fatigue, and pain interference working with adolescents with JIA, parents of JIA patients, and clinicians, using a standard setting methodology modified from educational testing. Item parameters were used to develop clinical vignettes across a range of symptom severity. Vignettes were ordered by severity, and panelists identified adjacent vignettes considered to represent upper and lower boundaries separating category cut-points (i.e., from none/mild problems to moderate/severe). To define MIDs, panelists reviewed a full score report for the vignettes and indicated which items would need to change and by how much to represent "just enough improvement to make a difference." For fatigue and UE, cut-points among panels were within 0.5 SD of each other. For mobility and pain interference, cut-scores among panels were more divergent, with parents setting the lowest cut-scores for increasing severity. The size of MIDs varied by stakeholders (parents estimated largest, followed by patients, then clinicians). MIDs also varied by severity classification of the symptom. We estimated clinically relevant severity cut-points and MIDs for PROMIS measures for JIA from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders and found notable differences in perspectives.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 37 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 28%
Student > Master 6 15%
Professor 5 13%
Unspecified 4 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Other 10 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 44%
Unspecified 8 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 21%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Other 3 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 December 2016.
All research outputs
#10,548,475
of 13,244,752 outputs
Outputs from Quality of Life Research
#1,291
of 1,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,279
of 374,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quality of Life Research
#49
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,244,752 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,941 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 374,482 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.