↓ Skip to main content

Development and psychometric validation of the Nausea/Vomiting Symptom Assessment patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument for adults with secondary hyperparathyroidism

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Development and psychometric validation of the Nausea/Vomiting Symptom Assessment patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument for adults with secondary hyperparathyroidism
Published in
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s41687-018-0029-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Colleen A. McHorney, Mark E. Bensink, Laurie B. Burke, Vasily Belozeroff, Chad Gwaltney

Abstract

We developed the Nausea/Vomiting Symptom Assessment (NVSA©) patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument to capture patients' experience with nausea and vomiting while on calcimimetic therapy to treat secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) related to end-stage kidney disease. This report summarizes the content validity and psychometric validation of the NVSA©. The two NVSA© items were drafted by two health outcomes researchers, one medical development lead, and one regulatory lead: it yields three scores: the number of days of vomiting or nausea per week, the number of vomiting episodes per week, and the mean severity of nausea. An eight-week prospective observational study was conducted at ten dialysis centers in the U.S. with 91 subjects. Criterion measures included in the study were the Functional Living Index-Emesis, Kidney Disease Quality of Life Instrument, EQ-5D-5 L, Static Patient Global Assessment, and Patient Global Rating of Change. Analyses included assessment of score distributions, convergent and known-groups validity, test-retest reliability, ability to detect change, and thresholds for meaningful change. Qualitative interviews verified that the NVSA© captures relevant aspects of nausea and vomiting. Patients understood the NVSA© instructions, items, and response scales. Correlations between the NVSA© and related and unrelated measures indicated strong convergent and discriminant validity, respectively. Mean differences between externally-defined vomiting/nausea groups supported known-groups validity. The scores were stable in subjects who reported no change on the Patient Global Rating of Change indicating sufficient test-retest reliability. The no-change group had mean differences and effect sizes close to zero; mean differences were mostly positive for a worsening group and mostly negative for the improvement group with predominantly medium or large effect sizes. Preliminary thresholds for meaningful worsening were 0.90 days for number of days of vomiting or nausea per week, 1.20 for number of episodes of vomiting per week, and 0.40 for mean severity of nausea. The NVSA© instrument demonstrated content validity, convergent and known-groups validity, test-retest reliability, and the ability to detect change. Preliminary thresholds for minimally important change should be further refined with additional interventional research. The NVSA© may be used to support study endpoints in clinical trials comparing the nausea/vomiting profile of novel SHPT therapies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 17%
Student > Bachelor 3 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Other 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Other 3 17%
Unknown 5 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 5 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 5 28%
Attention Score in Context

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 19 June 2018.
All research outputs
#18,639,173
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
#392
of 506 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#335,259
of 446,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 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 506 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 446,359 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.