Correlation of the National Institutes of Health Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Scales and Standard Pain and Functional Outcomes in Spine Augmentation

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Iskedjian M,
   2. Jaszewski B,
   3. Desjardins O

   . Comparison of scores derived from the Box Score-11 Scale and the pain attribute of the Health Utilities Index-3. Patient 2011; 4: 259– 65

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Fries JF,
   2. Krishnan E,
   3. Rose M,
   4. et al

   . Improved responsiveness and reduced sample size requirements of PROMIS physical function scales with item response theory. Arthritis Res Ther 2011; 13: R147

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Hambleton RK,
   2. Saminathan H,
   3. Rogers HJ

   . Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publishing; 1991
4. 4.↵
   1. Kleyweg RP,
   2. van der Meche FG,
   3. Schmitz PI

   . Interobserver agreement in the assessment of muscle strength and functional abilities in Guillain-Barré syndrome. Muscle Nerve 1991; 14: 1103– 09

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   1. Reeve BB,
   2. Hays RD,
   3. Bjorner JB,
   4. et al

   . Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Med Care 2007; 45: S22– 31

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   1. Ader DN

   . Developing the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Med Care 2007; 45 (suppl 1): S1– S2

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. PROMIS.

   http://www.nihpromis.org. Accessed February 6, 2012.
8. 8.↵
   1. Yost KJ,
   2. Eton DT,
   3. Garcia SF,
   4. et al

   . Minimally important differences were estimated for six Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Cancer scales in advanced-stage cancer patients. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 507– 16

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Jacobson NS,
   2. Truax P

   . Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol 1991; 59: 12– 19

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    1. King MT

    . A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2011; 11: 171– 84

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Hahn EA,
    2. Cella D,
    3. Chassany O,
    4. et al

    . Precision of health-related quality-of-life data compared with other clinical measures. Mayo Clin Proc 2007; 82: 1244– 54

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    The Research Methods Knowledge Base. October 20, 2006. http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb. Accessed January 9, 2012
13. 13.↵
    1. Cella D,
    2. Riley W,
    3. Stone A,
    4. et al

    . The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–08. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 1179– 94

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    1. Martinez-Martin P,
    2. Carod-Artal FJ,
    3. da Silveira Ribeiro L,
    4. et al

    . Longitudinal psychometric attributes, responsiveness, and importance of change: an approach using the SCOPA-Psychosocial questionnaire. Mov Disord 2008; 23: 1516– 23

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Farrar JT,
    2. Young JP Jr.,
    3. LaMoreaux L,
    4. et al

    . Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain 2001; 94: 149– 58

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    1. Revicki DA,
    2. Chen WH,
    3. Harnam N,
    4. et al

    . Development and psychometric analysis of the PROMIS pain behavior item bank. Pain 2009; 146: 158– 69

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
17. 17.↵
    1. Yost KJ,
    2. Cella D,
    3. Chawla A,
    4. et al

    . Minimally important differences were estimated for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C) instrument using a combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58: 1241– 51

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    1. Bajaj JS,
    2. Thacker LR,
    3. Wade JB,
    4. et al

    . PROMIS computerised adaptive tests are dynamic instruments to measure health-related quality of life in patients with cirrhosis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011; 34: 1123– 32

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Bombardier C,
    2. Hayden J,
    3. Beaton DE

    . Minimal clinically important difference: low back pain—outcome measures. J Rheumatol 2001; 28: 431– 38

    Abstract/FREE Full Text