↓ Skip to main content

Psychometric properties of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in patients diagnosed with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS)

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Psychometric properties of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in patients diagnosed with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS)
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12955-016-0417-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hiral Anil Shah, Melina Dritsaki, Joshua Pink, Stavros Petrou

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3 L, the SF-12 v2 and its preference based derivative the SF-6D, and the St Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), in patients diagnosed with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). Data from the Oscillation in ARDS (OSCAR) randomised unblinded clinical trial of 795 patients diagnosed with ARDS provided the foundation of this secondary psychometric analysis. The three source patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) (EQ-5D-3 L, SF-12 and SGRQ) were collected at both 6 and 12 months post randomisation. All measures were tested for acceptability, reliability, internal consistency, validity and responsiveness. Data from responders at 6 months was used to test for acceptability, reliability, known groups validity and internal responsiveness. Data from patients who responded at both 6 and 12 months was used to test for convergent validity and external responsiveness. Rates of response at both 6 and 12 months post randomisation were 89.88 % for the EQ-5D-3 L, 77.38 % for the SF-6D, 71.43 % for both the physical and mental components of the SF-12 and 38.10 % for the SGRQ. All measures had a Cronbach's Alpha statistic higher than 0.7. For known group's validity, there was no difference in mean summary or utility scores between known groups for all PROMs with minimal effect sizes. All three source measures showed strong convergent and discriminant validity. There was consistent evidence that the SF-6D is an empirically valid and efficient alternative to the EQ-5D-3 L. The EQ-5D-3 L and SGRQ were more responsive compared to the SF-12 and SF-6D with the EQ-5D-3 L generating greater effect sizes than the SGRQ. The PROMs explored in this study displayed varying psychometric properties in the context of ARDS. Further research should focus on shortening the SGRQ whilst still maintaining its psychometric properties and mapping between the SGRQ and preference-based measures for future application within economic evaluations of respiratory focused interventions. The selection ofa preferred PROM for evaluative studies within the ARDS context should ultimately depend on the relative importance placed on individual psychometric properties and the importance placed on generation of health utilities for economic evaluation purposes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 58 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 20%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 15 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Psychology 4 7%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 15 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 September 2016.
All research outputs
#4,222,879
of 8,372,629 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#408
of 982 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,749
of 335,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#14
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,372,629 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 982 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,999 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.