Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39716127›Full record

Trial reportBMC health services research2024

Completeness of repeated patient-reported outcome measures in adult rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial in a diverse clinical population.

Anne-Lene Sand-Svartrud, Ingvild Kjeken, Renate Foss Skardal, Gunhild M Gjerset, Tonje Jossie Johnsen, Anne Dorte Lyken, Hanne Dagfinrud, Rikke Helene Moe

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03764982 (RehabNytte - A Multi Center Study in Specialized Rehabilitation Centers in Norway Exploring Health, Function, Workability and Quality of Life Following Rehabilitation), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03764982 unknown statusnot on this map

RehabNytte - A Multi Center Study in Specialized Rehabilitation Centers in Norway Exploring Health, Function, Workability and Quality of Life Following Rehabilitation

TypeobservationalSponsorDiakonhjemmet HospitalRan2019 to 2025Enrolled3,793ConditionsRehabilitation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Anne-Lene Sand-SvartrudHealth Services Research and Innovation Unit, and Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway. anne-lene.svartrud@diakonsyk.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6341-9333
Ingvild KjekenHealth Services Research and Innovation Unit, and Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3971-2852
Renate Foss SkardalSørlandet Rehabilitation Center, Eiken, Norway.
Gunhild M GjersetMontebello Rehabilitation Center, Mesnali, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0048-9224
Tonje Jossie JohnsenHernes Occupational Rehabilitation Center, Hernes, Norway.
Anne Dorte LykenSørlandet Rehabilitation Center, Eiken, Norway.
Hanne DagfinrudHealth Services Research and Innovation Unit, and Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7097-2962
Rikke Helene MoeHealth Services Research and Innovation Unit, and Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7601-5346

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundData collection through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is essential for the purpose of rehabilitation research and registries. Existing problems with incomplete PROM data may relate to the patient burden and data set length. This study aimed to analyse response patterns and degree of data completeness in systematic outcome assessments conducted within a clinical study in a multidisciplinary rehabilitation setting, comparing completeness of a brief and a longer set of PROMs.

methodsThe Norwegian RehabNytte Cohort was developed to monitor patients' long-term benefit of rehabilitation and progress on PROMs. Adults admitted to one of 17 institutions providing mostly inpatient rehabilitation in secondary healthcare were included between January 2019 and March 2020, and followed for one year. For the purpose of the current randomized controlled trial, the Cohort-patients in 16/17 institutions were randomized to complete either a brief or a longer set of PROMs at admission, discharge, and after 3, 6 and 12 months. The brief set comprised the EQ-5D-5L and additional generic PROMs commonly used in rehabilitation settings. The longer data set expanded upon the brief set by including the Patient-Specific Functional Scale and the 29-item version of the PROMIS Profile instruments. Completeness was measured as the extent of present applicable PROM data at each time point. In addition, we assessed response patterns in terms of dropout rates and intermittently missed assessment events. The RehabNytte study is registered under ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT03764982, first posted 05.12.2018).

resultsOf the 2904 patients included, 1455 were assigned to the brief data set and 1449 to the longer data set. The majority of patients were referred to rehabilitation for rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (39.3%) or cancer (26.9%). The data set completeness was significantly higher in the brief set compared to the longer (p < 0.001). From admission to 12 months follow-up, differences in completeness between groups ranged from 6.5 to 12.6 percentage points, consistently favouring the brief set. Completeness was highest at admission, reaching 96.8% (95% CI 0.96-0.98) for the brief set and 84.2% (95% CI 0.82-0.86) for the longer set. The lowest completeness was observed at discharge, with 46.0% (95% CI 0.43-0.49) for the brief set and 39.5% (95% CI 0.37-0.42) for the longer one. Discharge was the only time point without automatic reminders to non-responders from the digital data collection system. Patients responding to the longer data set exhibited the highest dropout rates, while degree of intermittent missing data was comparable between groups. In both groups, only one-third of patients provided complete or partly responses at all five time points.

conclusionsThis study demonstrated that a brief set of PROMs achieved higher data completeness compared to a longer set, when used for repeated measurements in a rehabilitation research setting.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorwayRehabilitationCompletenessData qualityPatient-reported outcomePatient-reported outcome measuresRehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID39716127
PMCPMC11668074

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.