Cited by 212Psychometric Methodologies and TestingMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and Opioid Use

Evidence from diverse clinical populations supported clinical validity of PROMIS pain interference and pain behavior

Open access
Askew, Robert L., Cook, Karon F., Revicki, Dennis A., Cella, David, Amtmann, Dagmar·2016·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Objective To evaluate clinical validity, including responsiveness, of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PROMIS-PI) and pain behavior (PROMIS-PB) T-scores.Study design and setting Data were aggregated from longitudinal studies of cancer, chronic low back pain (cLBP), rheumatoid arthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and major depressive disorder (MDD). Linear mixed-effects models were used to compare baseline score differences and score changes over time. We calculated standardized response means (SRMs) for subgroups defined by self-reported change in general health and pain.Results A total of 1,357 individuals participated at baseline and 1,225 at follow-up. Hypotheses of significant change in PROMIS-PI and PROMIS-PB scores were supported in the intervention groups (cLBP and MDD). Differences in baseline scores for COPD exacerbators compared to stable COPD patients were in the hypothesized direction but were not statistically significant. Subgroups reporting better health showed corresponding negative SRM values supporting responsiveness of T-scores to improvement. Responsiveness to decrements was supported in some but not all clinical groups and varied by anchor. More congruent values were obtained when using a pain-specific anchor.Conclusion This study provides evidence that PROMIS-PI and PROMIS-PB scores are sensitive to changes in pain in studies of interventions expected to impact pain. The results inform estimation of meaningful change and support power analyses for comparative effectiveness research.

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.2015.08.035

Cites

51 of 51 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?

  • The PROMIS pain intensity, pain interference and physical function scales have been shown to detect intervention-related change in heterogeneous pain groups.

    “These measures have been shown to detect intervention-related change in heterogeneous pain groups [39].”

    From A randomized controlled trial of yoga vs nonaerobic exercise for veterans with PTSD: Understanding efficacy, mechanisms of change, and mode of delivery (2021) · cites this paper as [39]

    The Measures section says the study used PROMIS pain interference and pain behavior, not pain intensity or physical function. The Results (Longitudinal Change) report significant intervention-related changes in pain interference scores in the chronic low back pain and depression groups. The cited paper therefore supports the claim for pain interference, but not for the other two named scales. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Askew, R. L., Cook, K. F., Revicki, D. A., Cella, D., & Amtmann, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Amtmann, Dagmar
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-05
Volume
73
Pages
103-111
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2297767387
Cited by
212
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 3
FWCI
14.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5u01ar057940-04)
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA060068, P30CA060553)
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (U01AR052171, U01AR057956, U01AR057967, U01AR052186, U01-AR-057940, U01AR057936, U54AR057943, U01AR057929, U01AR052170, U01AR052158, U01AR052155, U01AR052177, U01AR052181, U01AR057971, U01AR057954, U01AR057948, U54AR057926, U54AR057951)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
Keywords
PROMIS, pain interference, pain behavior, clinical validity, responsiveness, standardized response mean, patient-reported outcomes, chronic low back pain, cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, major depressive disorder, meaningful change, power analysis, comparative effectiveness research
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Chronic Disease, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, National Institutes of Health (U.S.), Pain Measurement, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Behavior, United States, Reproducibility of Results, Comorbidity, Young Adult, Comparative Effectiveness Research, Self Report, Chronic Pain

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