Cited by 187Psychometric Methodologies and TestingAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation

Operating Characteristics of PROMIS Four-Item Depression and Anxiety Scales in Primary Care Patients with Chronic Pain

Open access
Kroenke, Kurt, Yu, Zhangsheng, Wu, Jingwei, Kean, Jacob, Monahan, Patrick O.·2014·Pain Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Depression and anxiety are prevalent in patients with chronic pain and adversely affect pain, quality of life, and treatment response. The purpose of this psychometric study was to determine the reliability and validity of the four-item Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression and anxiety scales in patients with chronic pain. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from the Stepped Care to Optimize Pain care Effectiveness study, a randomized clinical trial of optimized analgesic therapy. SETTING: Five primary care clinics at the Roudebush VA Medical Center (RVAMC) in Indianapolis, Indiana. SUBJECTS: Two hundred forty-four primary care patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: All patients completed the four-item depression and anxiety scales from the PROMIS 29-item profile, as well as several other validated psychological measures. The minimally important difference (MID) using the standard error of measurement (SEM) was calculated for each scale, and convergent validity was assessed by interscale correlations at baseline and 3 months. Operating characteristics of the PROMIS measures for detecting patients who had probable major depression or were anxiety-disorder screen-positive were calculated. RESULTS: The PROMIS scales had good internal reliability, and the MID (as represented by two SEMs) was 2 points for the depression scale and 2.5 points for the anxiety scale. Convergent validity was supported by strong interscale correlations. The optimal screening cutpoint on the 4- to 20-point PROMIS scales appeared to be 8 for both the depression and anxiety scales. CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS four-item depression and anxiety scales are reasonable options as ultra-brief measures for screening in patients with chronic pain.

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/pme.12537

Cites

72 of 72 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?

  • Minimum clinically meaningful effect sizes were a priori set to match thresholds used in the pilot feasibility study, which were determined from previously published literature in conservatively managed orthopedic patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain.

    “Minimum clinically meaningful effect sizes were a priori set to match thresholds used in the pilot feasibility study, which were determined from previously published literature in conservatively managed orthopedic patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain.”

    From Digital Mental Health Intervention Plus Usual Care Compared With Usual Care Only and Usual Care Plus In-Person Psychological Counseling for Orthopedic Patients With Symptoms of Depression or Anxiety: Cohort Study (2022) · cites this paper as [41]

    The Abstract and Discussion (page unavailable) report minimally important differences of 2 and 2.5 points for PROMIS depression and anxiety scales in primary-care patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. They do not say these were a priori thresholds matched to a pilot feasibility study or derived from literature on conservatively managed orthopedic patients. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Clinically meaningful PROMIS score changes in patients with conservatively managed chronic musculoskeletal pain have previously been defined as 3.0 points for Anxiety, 3.2 points for Depression, 2.0 points for Pain Interference, and 2.2 points for Physical Function.

    “clinically meaningful PROMIS score changes in patients with conservatively managed chronic musculoskeletal pain have previously been defined as 3.0 points for Anxiety, 3.2 points for Depression, 2.0 points for Pain Interference, and 2.2 points for Physical Function [45-47].”

    From Behavioral Mechanisms That Mediate Mental and Physical Health Improvements in People With Chronic Pain Who Receive a Digital Health Intervention: Prospective Cohort Pilot Study (2023) · cites this paper as [46]

    The Results and Discussion report minimally important differences for four-item PROMIS depression and anxiety scales in primary care patients with chronic pain, and describe three points as a conservative estimate. They do not define the claimed 3.0-point Anxiety and 3.2-point Depression thresholds, or report thresholds for Pain Interference and Physical Function. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The PROMIS-29 Profile v2.1 has good internal reliability and convergent validity in chronic pain samples.

    “Good internal reliability and convergent validity have been found in chronic pain samples (19).”

    From Internet Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Painful Chronic Pancreatitis: A Pilot Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial (2021) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Results and Discussion report good internal reliability and strong convergent validity for the four-item PROMIS depression and anxiety scales in primary care patients with chronic pain. Those scales came from the PROMIS 29-item profile, but the paper does not establish these properties for the PROMIS-29 Profile v2.1 as a whole. Page numbers were not provided in the supplied passages. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Minimum clinically meaningful effect sizes were a priori chosen in accordance with previously published literature involving patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain who were managed nonoperatively.

    “Minimum clinically meaningful effect sizes were a priori chosen in accordance with previously published literature involving patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain who were managed nonoperatively.”
  • Clinically meaningful effect sizes were defined as at least 3.2 points for PROMIS Depression, 3.0 points for Anxiety, 2.0 points for Pain Interference, and 2.2 points for Physical Function.

    “Therefore, clinically meaningful effect sizes were defined as at least 3.2 points for PROMIS Depression, 3.0 points for Anxiety, 2.0 points for Pain Interference, and 2.2 points for Physical Function [34-36].”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Poleshuck EL, Bair MJ, Kroenke K, et al. Musculoskel- etal pain and measures of depression. Gen Hosp Psy- chiatry 2010;32:114-5.
  2. Gibbons LE, Feldman BJ, Crane HM, et al. Migrating from a legacy fixed-format measure to CAT adminis- tration: Calibrating the PHQ-9 to the PROMIS depres- sion measures. Qual Life Res 2011;20(9):1349- 57.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kroenke, K., Yu, Z., Wu, J., Kean, J., & Monahan, P. O.
Affiliations
  • Regenstrief Institute (US)
  • Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
  • Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Kroenke, Kurt
Venue
Pain Medicine
Published
2014-11
Volume
15
Issue
11
Pages
1892-1901
ISSN
  • 1526-2375 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-4637
OpenAlex
W1489618335
Cited by
187
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
6.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Pain Medicine (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
  • PMC
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (NCT00926588, IIR 07-119, IK2 RX000879)
  • Health Services Research and Development
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R03MH078785, P30MH062512)
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (R01AR064081)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Keywords
PROMIS, depression screening, anxiety screening, chronic pain, primary care, musculoskeletal pain, minimally important difference, convergent validity, patient-reported outcomes, veterans
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Analgesics, Anxiety, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, ROC Curve, Reproducibility of Results, Area Under Curve, 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