Patient reported outcomes are becoming increasingly important when investigating results of patient and disease management. In sacral tumor patients symptoms can vary substantially, therefore no single questionnaire can adequately account for the full spectrum of symptoms and disability.
The purpose of this study is to analyze redundancy within the current sacral tumor survey and make a recommendation for an updated version based on the results and patient and expert opinions.
A survey study from a tertiary care orthopaedic oncology referral center was used for this study.
The patient sample included 70 patients with sacral tumors (78% chordoma).
The following ten questionnaires included in the current sacral tumor survey were evaluated: the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global Item short form, PROMIS Pain Intensity short form, PROMIS Pain Interference short form, PROMIS Neuro-QOL v1.0 Lower Extremity Function short form, PROMIS v1.0 Anxiety short form, the PROMIS v1.0 Depression short form, the International Continence Society (ICS) Male short form, the Modified Obstruction-Defecation Syndrome (MODS) questionnaire, the PROMIS Sexual Function Profile v1.0, and The Stoma Quality Of Life tool.
We performed an exploratory factor analysis to calculate possible underlying latent traits. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were used to measure to what extent the questionnaires converged. We hypothesized the existence of six domains based on current literature: mental health, physical health, pain, gastrointestinal symptoms, sexual function, and urinary incontinence. To assess content validity, we surveyed 32 patients, nine orthopaedic oncologists, one medical oncologist, one radiation oncologist, and an orthopaedic oncology nurse practitioner with experience in treating sacral tumor patients on the relevance of the domains.
Reliability as measured by Cronbach alpha ranged from 0.65 to 0.96. Coverage measured by floor and ceiling effects ranged from 0 to 52% and from 0 to 30%, respectively. Explanatory factor analysis identified three traits to which the questionnaires that were expected to measure a similar construct correlated the most; mental health, physical function, and pain. Content validity index demonstrated low disagreement among patients (range: 0.10 to 0.18) and high agreement among physicians (range: 0.91 to 1.0) on the relevance of the proposed domains. Social health was identified by 50% of the commenting patients as an important yet missing domain.
The current sacral tumor survey is incomplete, time consuming, and not all surveys are appropriate for the sacral tumor population. Our recommended survey contains less than half the questions and includes the newly recognized domain social health.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 November 2016.
All research outputs
#28,600,579
of 34,360,257 outputs
Outputs from Spine Journal
#2,993
of 4,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,896
of 333,881 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Spine Journal
#57
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,360,257 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,237 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,881 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
