Cargando…

Measuring Fatigue in Multiple Sclerosis: There may be Trouble Ahead

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Close, James, Vandercappellen, Jo, King, Miriam, Hobart, Jeremy
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Healthcare 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10444927/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37353721
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40120-023-00501-9
_version_ 1785094061704609792
author Close, James
Vandercappellen, Jo
King, Miriam
Hobart, Jeremy
author_facet Close, James
Vandercappellen, Jo
King, Miriam
Hobart, Jeremy
author_sort Close, James
collection PubMed
description 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40120-023-00501-9.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10444927
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer Healthcare
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104449272023-08-24 Measuring Fatigue in Multiple Sclerosis: There may be Trouble Ahead Close, James Vandercappellen, Jo King, Miriam Hobart, Jeremy Neurol Ther Original Research 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40120-023-00501-9. Springer Healthcare 2023-06-23 /pmc/articles/PMC10444927/ /pubmed/37353721 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40120-023-00501-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Research
Close, James
Vandercappellen, Jo
King, Miriam
Hobart, Jeremy
Measuring Fatigue in Multiple Sclerosis: There may be Trouble Ahead
title Measuring Fatigue in Multiple Sclerosis: There may be Trouble Ahead
title_full Measuring Fatigue in Multiple Sclerosis: There may be Trouble Ahead
title_fullStr Measuring Fatigue in Multiple Sclerosis: There may be Trouble Ahead
title_full_unstemmed Measuring Fatigue in Multiple Sclerosis: There may be Trouble Ahead
title_short Measuring Fatigue in Multiple Sclerosis: There may be Trouble Ahead
title_sort measuring fatigue in multiple sclerosis: there may be trouble ahead
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10444927/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37353721
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40120-023-00501-9
work_keys_str_mv AT closejames measuringfatigueinmultiplesclerosistheremaybetroubleahead
AT vandercappellenjo measuringfatigueinmultiplesclerosistheremaybetroubleahead
AT kingmiriam measuringfatigueinmultiplesclerosistheremaybetroubleahead
AT hobartjeremy measuringfatigueinmultiplesclerosistheremaybetroubleahead