Equivalence of Paper and Electronic‐Based Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) exist for a variety of chronic gastrointestinal disorders in children. The availability of electronic (e-)formats of PROMs enhance the accessibility of these tools. The International Society for Pharmacoeconomic and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) defines measurement equivalence (ME) as "comparability of the psychometric properties of data" obtained from the administration of original and adapted versions of PROMs. Consideration of proxy PROM versions is unique to pediatrics and must be included in ME evaluations. We conducted a systematic review (SR) of the literature evaluating ME of e-versions adapted from pediatric paper-based PROMs. A literature search was conducted through Medline, Embase, APA PsychInfo, and the Cochrane Library. Titles, abstracts, and manuscripts were reviewed by 2 independent reviewers. The search yielded 19 studies meeting pre-defined criteria. Just over half (52.6%) of 19 PROMs were disease-specific ones. ME between paper- and e-PROM versions was reported as present in all 19 studies evaluating 5653 participants under the age of 18 years. However, only 6 (31.6%) studies evaluated ME in proxy reported e-versions. Despite the use of PROMs for children with a variety of chronic gastrointestinal disorders, only 1 study evaluated a PROM in this population (IMPACT III for inflammatory bowel disease). Findings from this SR highlight strategic opportunities for the pediatric gastroenterologist to broaden the clinical and research armamentarium to include e-PROMs.
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 | 0.157 | 0.496 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".