| Title |
The Treatment-induced Neuropathy Assessment Scale (TNAS): a psychometric update following qualitative enrichment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, February 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s41687-020-0180-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tito R. Mendoza, Loretta A. Williams, Qiuling Shi, Xin Shelley Wang, Oluwatosin Bamidele, Jeanie F. Woodruff, Charles S. Cleeland |
| Abstract |
The validation of the Treatment-induced Neuropathy Assessment Scale (TNAS v2.0), a patient-reported outcome measure of symptoms associated with cancer treatment-induced peripheral neuropathy (TIPN), was previously reported. Further patient input (qualitative interviewing, cognitive debriefing) suggested that the measure should be modified to better reflect the TIPN experience. We report the performance of a revised version (TNAS v3.0) for assessing TIPN across cancer treatments. This TNAS version incorporates extensive patient input, in accordance with FDA guidance on the development of patient-reported outcomes measures. Patients with multiple myeloma, colorectal cancer, or gynecological cancer treated with bortezomib, oxaliplatin, or taxane-platinum combination therapy, respectively, completed the TNAS v3.0, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy (EORTC-CIPN20), and a cognitive debriefing survey during a scheduled clinic visit. Patients also participated in in-depth qualitative interviews about their TIPN symptoms. The psychometric properties of the TNAS v3.0 were evaluated. Cognitive debriefing survey results were summarized and showed that most patients found the items easy to complete, comprehensible, acceptable, and not redundant. A notable change from TNAS v2.0 was the separation of "numbness" from "tingling," although these 2 items remained the most severe, followed by a new "pain" item. The Cronbach coefficient alphas for the 9-item TNAS were 0.88 and 0.90 at the first and second administrations, respectively, indicating good reliability. The test-retest reliability of the TNAS was 0.97. The correlation coefficients for the 9-item TNAS and the EORTC-CIPN20 were 0.69 for the sensory subscale, 0.70 for the motor subscale, and 0.32 for the autonomic subscale, indicating good validity. This psychometric evaluation showed that the TNAS v3.0 is valid and reliable. Further research is needed to determine clinically meaningful differences in TNAS v3.0 scores and demonstrate its responsiveness over time. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 14% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 11 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 32% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 13 | 46% |
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 21 February 2020.
All research outputs
#15,601,089
of 23,195,584 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
#310
of 513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,656
of 360,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
#17
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,195,584 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 513 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 360,828 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.