Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism · 2024
PROMIS-29 in rheumatoid arthritis patients who screen positive or negative for fibromyalgia on MDHAQ FAST4 (fibromyalgia assessment screening tool) or 2011 fibromyalgia criteria.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gibson Kathryn A, Kaplan Robert M, Pincus Theodore, Li Tengfei, Luta George
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: PROMIS-29 T-scores query health-related quality of life (HRQL) in 7 domains, physical function, pain, fatigue, anxiety, depression, sleep quality, and social participation, to establish population norms. An MDHAQ (multidimensional health assessment questionnaire) scores these 7 domains and includes medical information such as a FAST4 (fibromyalgia assessment screening tool) index. We analyzed PROMIS-29 T-scores in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients vs population norms and for positive vs negative fibromyalgia (FM) screens and compared PROMIS-29 T-scores to MDHAQ scores to assess HRQL.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed at one routine visit of 213 RA patients, who completed MDHAQ, PROMIS-29, and reference 2011 FM Criteria. PROMIS-29 T-scores were compared in RA vs population norms and in FM+ vs FM- RA patients, based on MDHAQ/FAST4 and reference criteria. Possible associations between PROMIS-29 T-scores and corresponding MDHAQ scores were analyzed using Spearman correlations and multiple regressions.
RESULTS: Median PROMIS-29 T-scores indicated clinically and statistically significantly poorer status in 26-29% FM+ vs FM- RA patients, with larger differences than in RA patients vs population norms for 6/7 domains. MDHAQ scores were correlated significantly with each of 7 corresponding PROMIS-29 domains (|rho|≥0.62, p<0.001). Linear regressions explained 55-73% of PROMIS-29 T-score variation by MDHAQ scores and 56%-70% of MDHAQ score variation by PROMIS-29 T-scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Scores for 7 PROMIS-29 domains and MDHAQ were highly correlated. The MDHAQ is effective to assess HRQL and offers incremental medical information, including FAST4 screening. The results indicate the importance of assessing comorbidities such as fibromyalgia screening in interpreting PROMIS-29 T-scores.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed at one routine visit of 213 RA patients, who completed MDHAQ, PROMIS-29, and reference 2011 FM Criteria. PROMIS-29 T-scores were compared in RA vs population norms and in FM+ vs FM- RA patients, based on MDHAQ/FAST4 and reference criteria. Possible associations between PROMIS-29 T-scores and corresponding MDHAQ scores were analyzed using Spearman correlations and multiple regressions.
RESULTS: Median PROMIS-29 T-scores indicated clinically and statistically significantly poorer status in 26-29% FM+ vs FM- RA patients, with larger differences than in RA patients vs population norms for 6/7 domains. MDHAQ scores were correlated significantly with each of 7 corresponding PROMIS-29 domains (|rho|≥0.62, p<0.001). Linear regressions explained 55-73% of PROMIS-29 T-score variation by MDHAQ scores and 56%-70% of MDHAQ score variation by PROMIS-29 T-scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Scores for 7 PROMIS-29 domains and MDHAQ were highly correlated. The MDHAQ is effective to assess HRQL and offers incremental medical information, including FAST4 screening. The results indicate the importance of assessing comorbidities such as fibromyalgia screening in interpreting PROMIS-29 T-scores.