Cited by 597Cancer survivorship and carePsychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Minimally important differences were estimated for six Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Cancer scales in advanced-stage cancer patients

Open access
Yost, Kathleen J., Eton, David T., Garcia, Sofia F., Cella, David·2011·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Objective We combined anchor- and distribution-based methods to establish minimally important differences (MIDs) for six Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-Cancer scales in advanced-stage cancer patients.Study design and setting Participants completed 6 PROMIS-Cancer scales and 23 anchor measures at an initial (n=101) assessment and a follow-up (n=88) assessment 6-12 weeks later. Three a priori criteria were used to identify usable cross-sectional and longitudinal anchor-based MID estimates. The mean standard error of measurement was also computed for each scale. The focus of the analysis was on item response theory-based MIDs estimated on a T-score scale. Raw score MIDs were estimated for comparison purposes.Results Many cross-sectional (64%) and longitudinal (73%) T-score anchor-based MID estimates were excluded because they did not meet a priori criteria. The following are the recommended T-score MID ranges: 17-item Fatigue (2.5-4.5), 7-item Fatigue (3.0-5.0), 10-item Pain Interference (4.0-6.0), 10-item Physical Functioning (4.0-6.0), 9-item Emotional Distress-Anxiety (3.0-4.5), and 10-item Emotional Distress-Depression (3.0-4.5). Effect sizes corresponding to these MIDs averaged between 0.40 and 0.63.Conclusions This study is the first to address MIDs for PROMIS measures. Studies are currently being conducted to confirm these MIDs in other patient populations and to determine whether these MIDs vary by patients' level of functioning.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.11.018

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • PROMIS measures were initially developed with cancer patients' input, and a growing body of research has documented their reliability and validity for use with cancer patients, including those with advanced disease.

    “PROMIS measures were initially developed with cancer patients’ input [32], and a growing body of research has documented the measures’ reliability and validity for use with cancer patients, including those with advanced disease [33–35].”

    From Symptom experiences in metastatic breast cancer patients: relationships to activity engagement, value-based living, and psychological inflexibility (2017) · cites this paper as [35]

    The Methods (sections 2.1–2.4; page unavailable) describe administering six PROMIS-Cancer scales to patients with stage III or IV cancer and assessing measurement precision and correlations with other measures. This provides some evidence about their use in advanced cancer, but the paper focuses on minimally important differences and does not establish the broader claim that research has documented both reliability and validity. The separate claim about patients’ input is attached to citation [32], not this source. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • MIDs for fatigue measures have substantially varied in studies of patients with advanced disease or those undergoing cancer treatment.

    “MIDs for fatigue measures have substantially varied in studies of patients with advanced disease or those undergoing cancer treatment [35–38] and have yet to be evaluated among post-treatment survivors.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yost, K. J., Eton, D. T., Garcia, S. F., & Cella, D.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Yost, Kathleen J.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-05
Volume
64
Issue
5
Pages
507-516
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1993773733
Cited by
597
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 77 · 2021: 64 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 55 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 9
FWCI
7.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • NorthShore University HealthSystem
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA060068)
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (U01AR052177)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
minimally important difference, patient-reported outcomes, advanced cancer, anchor-based methods, distribution-based methods, fatigue, pain interference, physical function, emotional distress, anxiety, depression, standard error of measurement, item response theory
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Chicago, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Sickness Impact Profile, Quality Indicators, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review