Comparing patient global impression of severity and patient global impression of change to evaluate test–retest reliability of depression, non-small cell lung cancer, and asthma measures

SonyaEremenco; Wen-HungChen; Steven I.BlumElizabeth NicoleBushDonald M.BushnellKendraDeBuskAdamGaterLindaNelsenStephen JoelCoons

首页> 外文期刊>Quality of life research: An international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation >Comparing patient global impression of severity and patient global impression of change to evaluate test–retest reliability of depression, non-small cell lung cancer, and asthma measures

【24h】

Comparing patient global impression of severity and patient global impression of change to evaluate test–retest reliability of depression, non-small cell lung cancer, and asthma measures

机译：Comparing patient global impression of severity and patient global impression of change to evaluate test–retest reliability of depression, non-small cell lung cancer, and asthma measures

获取原文

获取原文并翻译 | 示例

掌桥外文数据库（机构版） >>

开具论文收录证明 >>

文献代查 >>

页面导航

摘要
著录项
相关主题

摘要

Abstract Purpose Score reproducibility is an important measurement property of fit-for-purpose patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. It is commonly assessed via test–retest reliability, and best evaluated with a stable participant sample, which can be challenging to identify in diseases with highly variable symptoms. To provide empirical evidence comparing the retrospective (patient global impression of change PGIC) and current state (patient global impression of severity PGIS) approaches to identifying a stable subgroup for test–retest analyses, 3 PRO Consortium working groups collected data using both items as anchor measures.Methods The PGIS was completed on Day 1 and Day 8?+?3 for the depression and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) studies, and daily for the asthma study and compared between Day 3 and 10. The PGIC was completed on the final day in each study. Scores were compared using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for participants who reported “no change” between timepoints for each anchor.Results ICCs using the PGIS “no change” group were higher for depression (0.84 vs. 0.74), nighttime asthma (0.95 vs. 0.53) and daytime asthma (0.86 vs. 0.68) compared to the PGIC “no change” group. ICCs were similar for NSCLC (PGIS: 0.87; PGIC: 0.85).Conclusion When considering anchor measures to identify a stable subgroup for test–retest reliability analyses, current state anchors perform better than retrospective anchors. Researchers should carefully consider the type of anchor selected, the time period covered, and should ensure anchor content is consistent with the target measure concept, as well as inclusion of both current and retrospective anchor measures.

著录项

来源
《Quality of life research: An international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation》 |2022年第12期|3501-3512|共12页
作者
SonyaEremenco; Wen-HungChen; Steven I.BlumElizabeth NicoleBushDonald M.BushnellKendraDeBuskAdamGaterLindaNelsenStephen JoelCoons;
展开▼
作者单位

Critical Path Institute;

GlaxoSmithKline;

Bristol Myers SquibbEli Lilly and CompanyEvidera | PPDSeagen IncAdelphi Values;

展开▼
收录信息
原文格式 PDF
正文语种英语
中图分类医药、卫生;
关键词
Patient-reported outcome measure; Clinical outcome assessment; Test–retest reliability; PGIS; PGIC;

Comparing patient global impression of severity and patient global impression of change to evaluate test–retest reliability of depression, non-small cell lung cancer, and asthma measures

摘要

著录项

相关主题

期刊订阅