Content validity of psoriatic arthritis screening questionnaires: systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is the main entity associated with psoriasis (PsO). Consequently, several PsA screening instruments have been developed, most of them are self-administered questionnaires, known as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). OBJECTIVE: To identify, summarize, and systematically evaluate the evidence of the content validity of PsA screening PROMs, in patients with PsO, by the dermatologist, based on COSMIN methodology. METHODS: A structured literature search was performed, until June 2019, that included development and/or validation studies of a questionnaire for the screening of PsA in patients with PsO. The evaluation was based on the PROMs' development, relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility. RESULTS: Eleven PROMs were included in the systematic review with four additional validation studies of the included instruments. Only ToPAS2 (Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Screen) questionnaire had an adequate content validity. CONTEST (Comparison of three screening tools to detect psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis), CEPPA (Center of Excellence for Psoriasis sand Psoriatic Arthritis), and SiPAS (Simple Psoriatic Arthritis Screening questionnaire) qualified as inadequate. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the existence of eleven validated PsA screening PROMs, none were supported by very high-quality evidence of their content validity, which brings the opportunity for the creation of a new proposal PROM for the screening of PsA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".