Estimating minimally important differences for the PROMIS pain interference scales: results from 3 randomized clinical trials

被引:137
|
作者
Chen, Chen X. [1 ]
Kroenke, Kurt [2 ,3 ,4 ]
Stump, Timothy E. [5 ]
Kean, Jacob [6 ,7 ]
Carpenter, Janet S.
Krebs, Erin E. [8 ,9 ]
Bair, Matthew J. [2 ,3 ,4 ]
Damush, Teresa M. [2 ,3 ,4 ,10 ]
Monahan, Patrick O. [5 ]
机构
[1] Indiana Univ, Sch Nursing, Indianapolis, IN 46204 USA
[2] Indiana Univ Sch Med, Indianapolis, IN 46202 USA
[3] Regenstrief Inst Inc, Indianapolis, IN USA
[4] VA Hlth Serv Res & Dev, Ctr Hlth Informat & Commun, Indianapolis, IN USA
[5] Indiana Univ Sch Med, Dept Biostat, Indianapolis, IN 46202 USA
[6] Univ Utah, Sch Med, Dept Populat Hlth Sci, Salt Lake City, UT USA
[7] VA Salt Lake City Hlth Care Syst, Decision Enhancement & Analyt Sci Ctr, Informat, Salt Lake City, UT USA
[8] Univ Minnesota, Dept Med, Box 736 UMHC, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA
[9] Minneapolis VA Ctr Chron Dis Outcomes Res, Minneapolis, MN USA
[10] Precis Monitoring Qual Improvement PRIS M QUERI, Indianapolis, IN USA
关键词
PROMIS; Pain measurement; Pain interference; Minimally important difference; Psychometrics; Patient-reported outcome measures; OUTCOMES MEASUREMENT; INTRAINDIVIDUAL CHANGES; RESPONSIVENESS;
D O I
10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001121
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Minimally important difference (MID) refers to the smallest meaningful difference that carries implications for patient care. Minimally important differences are necessary to help interpret patient-reported pain outcomes in research and clinical practice. The PROMIS pain interference scales were validated across diverse samples; however, more information about their MIDs could improve their interpretability. The purpose of this study was to estimate MIDs for 4 fixed-length PROMIS pain interference scales, including the 6-item Pain Short Form and the 4-, 6-, and 8-item pain interference scales used in the PROMIS profile instruments. Data were analyzed from 3 randomized controlled trials (N = 759). The 3 samples, respectively, consisted of patients with chronic low back pain (n = 261), chronic back pain or hip/knee osteoarthritis pain (n = 240), and a history of stroke (n = 258). For each sample, anchor-and distribution-based approaches were used to estimate MIDs. Standard error of measurement and effect sizes were used as distribution-based MID estimates. Anchor-based MID estimates were established by mapping PROMIS pain interference scores onto established anchor measures, including the Brief Pain Inventory, and retrospective and prospective global ratings of change. The distribution-and anchor-based MID estimates showed convergence. For the pain samples, MID estimates ranged from 2 to 3 T-score points. For the nonpain sample, MID estimates ranged from 3.5 to 4.5 T-score points. The MID estimates were comparable across the 4 fixed-length scales. These MIDs can be used to evaluate treatment effects in research and clinical care and to calculate estimates for powering clinical trials.
引用
收藏
页码:775 / 782
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Estimating Minimally Important Differences for the PROMIS® Pain Interferences Scales Using Three Clinical Trials
    Chen, C.
    Kroenke, K.
    Stump, T.
    Kean, J.
    Carpenter, I.
    Kreb, E.
    Bair, M.
    Damush, T.
    Monahan, P.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PAIN, 2017, 18 (04): : S63 - S63
  • [2] Minimally important differences and severity thresholds are estimated for the PROMIS depression scales from three randomized clinical trials
    Kroenke, Kurt
    Stump, Timothy E.
    Chen, Chen X.
    Kean, Jacob
    Bair, Matthew J.
    Damush, Teresa M.
    Krebsg, Erin E.
    Monahan, Patrick O.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS, 2020, 266 : 100 - 108
  • [3] Minimally important differences for six PROMIS-Cancer scales
    Yost, Kathleen J.
    Eton, David T.
    Garcia, Sofia F.
    Cella, David
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2010, 19 : 15 - 15
  • [4] Comparative Responsiveness of the PROMIS Pain Interference Short Forms With Legacy Pain Measures: Results From Three Randomized Clinical Trials
    Chen, Chen X.
    Kroenke, Kurt
    Stump, Timothy
    Kean, Jacob
    Krebs, Erin E.
    Bair, Matthew J.
    Damush, Teresa
    Monahan, Patrick O.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PAIN, 2019, 20 (06): : 664 - 675
  • [5] Comparable Minimally Important Differences and Responsiveness of Brief Pain Inventory and PEG Pain Scales across 6 Trials
    Reed II, David E. Reed
    Stump, Timothy E.
    Monahan, Patrick O.
    Kroenke, Kurt
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PAIN, 2024, 25 (01): : 142 - 152
  • [6] Minimally Important Differences for Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (Promis) Fatigue and Pain Interference Scores
    Beaumont, Jennifer
    Fries, James F.
    Curtis, Jeffrey R.
    Cella, David
    Yun, Huifeng
    [J]. PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2015, 24 : 373 - 374
  • [7] MINIMALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES FOR PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES MEASUREMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM (PROMIS) FATIGUE AND PAIN INTERFERENCE SCORES
    Beaumont, J. L.
    Fries, J. F.
    Curtis, J. R.
    Cella, D.
    Yun, H.
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2015, 18 (03) : A165 - A166
  • [8] Confirmation of Minimally Important Differences For Six PROMIS-Cancer Scales and Five Computer Adaptive Tests (MT)
    Yost, Kathleen
    Beaumont, Jennifer L.
    Eton, David T.
    Garcia, Sofia E.
    Cella, David
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2012, 20 : 68 - 68
  • [9] A consideration of differences in pain scales used in clinical trials Comment
    Farrar, John T.
    [J]. PAIN, 2022, 163 (12) : E1164 - E1165
  • [10] PAIN MEASUREMENT IN RANDOMIZED CLINICAL-TRIALS - A COMPARISON OF 2 PAIN SCALES
    MACHIN, D
    LEWITH, GT
    WYLSON, S
    [J]. CLINICAL JOURNAL OF PAIN, 1988, 4 (03): : 161 - 168