Rothmund Maria, Pilz Micha J, Schlosser Lisa, Arraras Juan I, Groenvold Mogens, Holzner Bernhard, van Leeuwen Marieke, Petersen Morten Aa, Schmidt Heike, Young Teresa, Rose Matthias, Cella David, Giesinger Johannes M
Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, Psychosomatics, and Medical Psychology, University Clinic of Psychiatry II, Innsbruck Medical University, Anichstraße 35, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria; Institute of Psychology, University of Innsbruck, Innrain 52, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, Psychosomatics, and Medical Psychology, University Clinic of Psychiatry II, Innsbruck Medical University, Anichstraße 35, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2024 Jan;165:111203. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.10.019. Epub 2023 Oct 31.
To provide equipercentile equating of physical function (PF) scores from frequently used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in cancer patients to facilitate data pooling and comparisons.
Adult cancer patients from five European countries completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) computer adaptive test (CAT) Core, EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Version 3.0 (QLQ-C30), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G), 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function 20a short form. The R package "equate" was used to establish conversion tables of PF scores on those measures with a bivariate rank correlation of at least 0.75.
In total, 953 patients with cancer (mean age 58.9 years, 54.7% men) participated. Bivariate rank correlations between PF scores from the EORTC CAT Core, EORTC QLQ-C30, SF-36, and PROMIS were all above 0.85, but below 0.69 for the FACT-G. Conversion tables were established for all measures but the FACT-G. These tables indicate which score from one PROM best matches the score from another PROM and provide standard errors of converted scores.
Our analysis indicates that linking of PF scores from both EORTC measures (CAT and QLQ-C30) with PROMIS and SF-36 is possible, whereas the physical domain of the FACT-G seems to be different. The established conversion tables may be used for comparing results or pooling data from clinical studies using different PROMs.
对癌症患者常用的患者报告结局量表（PROMs）中的身体功能（PF）评分进行等百分位等值化，以促进数据汇总和比较。
来自五个欧洲国家的成年癌症患者完成了欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织（EORTC）计算机自适应测试（CAT）核心问卷、EORTC生活质量问卷第3.0版（QLQ - C30）、癌症治疗功能评估通用版（FACT - G）、36项简短健康调查（SF - 36）以及患者报告结局测量信息系统（PROMIS）身体功能20a简表。使用R软件包“equate”建立这些量表上PF评分的转换表，双变量等级相关性至少为0.75。
共有953例癌症患者（平均年龄58.9岁，54.7%为男性）参与。EORTC CAT核心问卷、EORTC QLQ - C30、SF - 36和PROMIS的PF评分之间的双变量等级相关性均高于0.85，但FACT - G的相关性低于0.69。除FACT - G外，为所有量表建立了转换表。这些表格表明一个PROM的哪个分数与另一个PROM的分数最匹配，并提供转换分数的标准误差。
我们的分析表明，EORTC的两项量表（CAT和QLQ - C30）的PF评分与PROMIS和SF - 36的关联是可行的，而FACT - G的身体领域似乎有所不同。所建立的转换表可用于比较使用不同PROMs的临床研究结果或汇总数据。
