Cited by 83Psychometric Methodologies and TestingLiver Disease and TransplantationHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

PROMIS computerised adaptive tests are dynamic instruments to measure health-related quality of life in patients with cirrhosis: PROMIS tools for quality of life assessment in cirrhosis

Open access
Bajaj, J. S., Thacker, L. R., Wade, J. B., Sanyal, A. J., Heuman, D. M., Sterling, R. K., Gibson, D. P., Stravitz, R. T. +7 more·2011·Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cirrhotic patients have an impaired health-related quality of life (HRQOL), which is usually analysed using static paper-pencil questionnaires. The Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computerised adaptive testing (CAT) are flexible, freely available, noncopyrighted, HRQOL instruments with US-based norms across 11 domains. CAT presents five to seven questions/domain depending on the patient's response, from large validated question banks. This provides brevity and precision equivalent to the entire question bank. AIM: To evaluate PROMIS CAT tools against 'legacy instruments' for cirrhotics and their informal caregivers. METHODS: A total of 200 subjects: 100 cirrhotics (70 men, 53% decompensated) and 100 caregivers were administered the PROMIS and legacy instruments [Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), Beck depression/anxiety inventories, Pittsburgh Sleep-Quality Index (PSQI) and Epworth Sleepiness scale (ESS)] concurrently. Both legacy and PROMIS results for patients were compared with caregivers and US norms. These were also compared between compensated and decompensated patients. Preference for SIP or PROMIS was inquired of a selected group (n = 70, 50% patients). Test - retest reliability was assessed in another group of 20 patients. RESULTS: Patients had significant impairment on all PROMIS domains apart from anger and anxiety compared with caregivers and US norms (P < 0.02 to <0.0001). Decompensated patients had significantly worse sleep, pain, social and physical function scores compared with compensated ones, similar to legacy instruments. There was a statistically significant correlation between PROMIS and their corresponding legacy instruments. The majority (71%) preferred PROMIS over SIP. PROMIS tools had significant test - retest reliability (ICC range 0.759-0.985) when administered 12 ± 6 days apart. CONCLUSION: PROMIS computerised adaptive testing tools had significant concurrent and discriminant validity, test - retest reliability and subject preference for assessing HRQOL in cirrhotic patients.

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 · 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2011.04842.x

Cites

46 of 46 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?

  • Estimates for the prevalence of depression and anxiety are best known in patients with decompensated cirrhosis and liver transplant candidates.

    “Estimates for the prevalence of depression and anxiety are best known in patients with decompensated cirrhosis and liver transplant candidates13,14”

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
Bajaj, J. S., Thacker, L. R., Wade, J. B., Sanyal, A. J., Heuman, D. M., Sterling, R. K., Gibson, D. P., Stravitz, R. T., Puri, P., Fuchs, M., Luketic, V., Noble, N., White, M., Bell, D., & Revicki, D. A.
Affiliations
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
  • Georgetown University Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Bajaj, J. S.
Venue
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-09-19
Volume
34
Issue
9
Pages
1123-1132
ISSN
0269-2813 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2099728097
Cited by
83
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
6.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK087913)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR021990)
  • National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (UO1AT004428, U01AT004428)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Liver Disease and Transplantation
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
PROMIS, computerized adaptive testing, health-related quality of life, liver cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, patient-reported outcomes, informal caregivers, Sickness Impact Profile, sleep quality, test-retest reliability, concurrent validity, discriminant validity, patient preferences
MeSH terms
Adult, Depressive Disorder, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Disability Evaluation, Female, Health Status Indicators, Health Surveys, Humans, Liver Cirrhosis, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Caregivers, Sickness Impact Profile

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