Evaluating the impact of calibration of patient-reported outcomes measures on results from randomized clinical trials: a simulation study based on Rasch measurement theory.
BMC Med Res Methodol
; 22(1): 224, 2022 08 12.
Article
em En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-35962310
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND:
Meaningfully interpreting patient-reported outcomes (PRO) results from randomized clinical trials requires that the PRO scores obtained in the trial have the same meaning across patients and previous applications of the PRO instrument. Calibration of PRO instruments warrants this property. In the Rasch measurement theory (RMT) framework, calibration is performed by fixing the item parameter estimates when measuring the targeted concept for each individual of the trial. The item parameter estimates used for this purpose are typically obtained from a previous "calibration" study. But imposing this constraint on item parameters, instead of freely estimating them directly in the specific sample of the trial, may hamper the ability to detect a treatment effect. The objective of this simulation study was to explore the potential negative impact of calibration of PRO instruments that were developed using RMT on the comparison of results between treatment groups, using different analysis methods.METHODS:
PRO results were simulated following a polytomous Rasch model, for a calibration and a trial sample. Scenarios included varying sample sizes, with instrument of varying number of items and modalities, and varying item parameters distributions. Different treatment effect sizes and distributions of the two patient samples were also explored. Cross-sectional comparison of treatment groups was performed using different methods based on a random effect Rasch model. Calibrated and non-calibrated approaches were compared based on type-I error, power, bias, and variance of the estimates for the difference between groups.RESULTS:
There was no impact of the calibration approach on type-I error, power, bias, and dispersion of the estimates. Among other findings, mistargeting between the PRO instrument and patients from the trial sample (regarding the level of measured concept) resulted in a lower power and higher position bias than appropriate targeting.CONCLUSIONS:
Calibration does not compromise the ability to accurately assess a treatment effect using a PRO instrument developed within the RMT paradigm in randomized clinical trials. Thus, given its essential role in producing interpretable results, calibration should always be performed when using a PRO instrument developed using RMT as an endpoint in a randomized clinical trial.Palavras-chave
Texto completo:
1
Coleções:
01-internacional
Base de dados:
MEDLINE
Assunto principal:
Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente
Tipo de estudo:
Clinical_trials
/
Observational_studies
/
Prevalence_studies
/
Prognostic_studies
/
Risk_factors_studies
Limite:
Humans
Idioma:
En
Revista:
BMC Med Res Methodol
Assunto da revista:
MEDICINA
Ano de publicação:
2022
Tipo de documento:
Article
País de afiliação:
França