The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
PROMIS Fatigue Item Bank had Clinical Validity across Diverse Chronic Conditions
Open accessAbstract
Objective To evaluate the comparability and responsiveness of PROMIS Fatigue Item Bank across six chronic conditions. Study Design and Setting Individuals (n=1,430) with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; n=125), chronic heart failure (CHF; n=60), chronic back pain (n=218), major depressive disorder (MDD; n=196), rheumatoid arthritis (RA; n=521), and cancer(n=310) completed assessments from the PROMIS fatigue item bank at baseline and a clinically-relevant follow-up. The cancer and arthritis samples were followed in observational studies; the other four groups were enrolled immediately prior to a planned clinical intervention. All participants completed global ratings of change at follow-up. Linear mixed effects models and standardized response means were estimated to examine clinical validity and responsiveness to change. Results All patient groups reported more fatigue than the general population (range = 0.2 – 1.29 SD worse). The four clinical groups with pre-treatment baseline data experienced significant improvement in fatigue at follow-up (effect size range= 0.25 to 0.91). Individuals reporting better overall health usually experienced larger fatigue changes than those reporting worse overall health. Conclusion The results support the PROMIS fatigue measures’s responsiveness to change in six different chronic conditions. In addition, these results support the ability of the PROMIS fatigue measures to compare differences in fatigue across a range of chronic conditions, thereby enabling comparative effectiveness research.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., Filiberti, A., Flechtner, H., Fleishman, S. B., Haes, J. C. J. M. D., et al. (1993) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/85.5.365 · Cited by 16,005
Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., Amtmann, D., Bode, R., Buysse, D., Choi, S., et al. (2010) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011 · Cited by 5,128
Self-citationLinear Mixed Models for Longitudinal Data
Verbeke, G. (1997) · Lecture Notes in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-2294-1_3 · Cited by 3,506
Measuring Functioning and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach
Stewart, A., & Ware, J. (1992) · doi:10.7249/cb361 · Cited by 2,689
Linear mixed models for longitudinal data
(2000) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/b98969 · Cited by 818
Yost, K. J., & Eton, D. T. (2005) · Evaluation & the Health Professions · doi:10.1177/0163278705275340 · Cited by 382
Cited by
Subnis, U. B., Farb, N. A., Piedalue, K.-A. L., Speca, M., Lupichuk, S., Tang, P. A., Faris, P., Thoburn, M., Saab, B. J., & Carlson, L. E. (2020) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/15178 · Cited by 37
Mosher, C. E., Secinti, E., Johns, S. A., Kroenke, K., & Rogers, L. Q. (2022) · Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes · doi:10.1186/s41687-022-00488-1 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Cella, D., Lai, J.-S., Jensen, S. E., Christodoulou, C., Junghaenel, D. U., Reeve, B. B., & Stone, A. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-05
- Volume
- 73
- Pages
- 128-134
- ISSN
- 0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2289810507
- Cited by
- 255
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 19.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: PROMIS Fatigue Item Bank had Clinical Validity across Diverse Chronic Conditions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.037
- The paper
- Cella, D., Lai, J.-S., Jensen, S. E., Christodoulou, C., Junghaenel, D. U., Reeve, B. B., & Stone, A. A. (2016). PROMIS Fatigue Item Bank had Clinical Validity across Diverse Chronic Conditions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.037
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.