Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorClose, J
dc.contributor.authorVandercappellen, J
dc.contributor.authorKing, M
dc.contributor.authorHobart, J
dc.date.accessioned2023-08-03T07:42:34Z
dc.date.available2023-08-03T07:42:34Z
dc.date.issued2023-06-23
dc.identifier.issn2193-8253
dc.identifier.issn2193-6536
dc.identifier.urihttps://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/handle/10026.1/21145
dc.description.abstract

Introduction Poorly developed patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) risk type-II errors (i.e. false negatives) in clinical trials, resulting in erroneous failure to achieve trial endpoints. Validity is a fundamental requirement of fit-for-purpose PROs, with the main determinant of validity being the PROs items, i.e. content validity. Here, we sought to identify fatigue PRO instruments used in multiple sclerosis (MS) studies and to assess the extent to which their development satisfied current content validity standards.

Methods We searched Embase® and Medline® for MS studies using fatigue-based PROs. Abstracts were screened, PROs identified, and their relevant development papers assessed against seven Consensus Standards for Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria for content development.

Results From 3814 abstracts, 18 fatigue PROs met our inclusion criteria. Most PROs did not satisfy at least one COSMIN content validity standard. Frequent omissions during PRO development include: clearly defined constructs; conceptual frameworks; qualitative research in representative samples; and literature reviews. PRO development quality has improved significantly since FDA guidance was published (U = 10.0, p = 0.02). However, scatterplots and correlations between PRO COSMIN scores and citation frequency (rho = − 0.62) and clinical trials usage (rho = + 0.18) implied that PRO quality is unrelated to choice. COSMIN scores implied that the Fatigue Symptoms and Impact Questionnaire—Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis (FSIQ-RMS) and Neurological Fatigue Index—Multiple Sclerosis (NFI-MS) had the strongest evidence for adequate content validity.

Conclusion Most existing fatigue PROs do not meet COSMIN content validity requirements. Although two PROs scored well on aggregate (NFI-MS and FSIQ-RMS), our subsequent evaluation of the item sets that generated their scores implied that both PROs have weaker content validity than COSMIN suggests. This indicates that COSMIN criteria require further development, and raises significant concerns about how we have measured one of the most common and burdensome MS symptoms. A detailed head-to-head psychometric evaluation is needed to determine the impact of different PRO development qualities and the implications of the problems implied by our analyses, on measurement performance.

dc.format.extent1649-1668
dc.format.mediumPrint-Electronic
dc.languageen
dc.publisherSpringer
dc.subjectMultiple sclerosis
dc.subjectPatient reported outcomes
dc.subjectFatigue
dc.subjectContent validity
dc.subjectFatigue measurement
dc.subjectMeasurement
dc.subjectCOSMIN criteria
dc.titleMeasuring Fatigue in Multiple Sclerosis: There may be Trouble Ahead
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeArticle
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37353721
plymouth.issue5
plymouth.volume12
plymouth.publication-statusPublished
plymouth.journalNeurology and Therapy
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s40120-023-00501-9
plymouth.organisational-group|Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group|Plymouth|Research Groups
plymouth.organisational-group|Plymouth|Faculty of Health
plymouth.organisational-group|Plymouth|Research Groups|Institute of Translational and Stratified Medicine (ITSMED)
plymouth.organisational-group|Plymouth|Research Groups|Institute of Translational and Stratified Medicine (ITSMED)|CCT&PS
plymouth.organisational-group|Plymouth|REF 2021 Researchers by UoA
plymouth.organisational-group|Plymouth|Users by role
plymouth.organisational-group|Plymouth|Users by role|Academics
plymouth.organisational-group|Plymouth|REF 2021 Researchers by UoA|UoA03 Allied Health Professions, Dentistry, Nursing and Pharmacy
plymouth.organisational-group|Plymouth|REF 2021 Researchers by UoA|UoA04 Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience
plymouth.organisational-group|Plymouth|Faculty of Health|Peninsula Medical School
plymouth.organisational-group|Plymouth|Research Groups|FoH - Community and Primary Care
dc.publisher.placeNew Zealand
dcterms.dateAccepted2023-05-17
dc.date.updated2023-08-03T07:42:24Z
dc.rights.embargodate2023-8-4
dc.identifier.eissn2193-6536
dc.rights.embargoperiodforever
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1007/s40120-023-00501-9


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV