Research

Demonstrate psychometric sensitivity analyses for testing the stability of study findings to assumptions made about patient-reported outcome measures.

Evaluate the utility of a joint model when analysing a patient-reported endpoint as part of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in which censoring occurs when patients die during follow-up.

To systematically survey the literature addressing the reporting of studies estimating anchor-based minimal important differences (MIDs) and choice of optimal MIDs.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are widely applied to assess perceived health status. To date, no transplant-specific PROM is available for generating a single, standardized score regarding the health status of transplant recipients. The objective of this study is to generate health items for a new patient-centered PROM for organ recipients: the Transplant PROM (TXP).

During development of complex surgical innovations, modifications occur to optimize safety and efficacy. Operators' experiences (how professionals feel undertaking the innovation) drive this process but comprehensive overviews of measures of this concept are lacking. This study identified and appraised measures to assess operators’ experience of surgical innovation.

This study aimed to investigate the adherence of randomized controlled trials of nutrition interventions to transparency practices informing assessments of selective reporting biases, including the availability of a trial registration entry, protocol and statistical analysis plan (SAP).

Ceiling effect may lead to misleading conclusions when using patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores as an outcome. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential source of ceiling effect–related errors in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting no differences in PROM scores between study groups.

To synthesize the current literature on the use of surrogate end points, including definitions, acceptability, and limitations of surrogate end points and guidance for their design/reporting, into trial reporting items.

This paper discusses methodological challenges in epidemiological association analysis of a time-to-event outcome and hypothesized risk factors, where age/time at the onset of the outcome may be missing in some cases, a condition commonly encountered when the outcome is self-reported.

By removing unreasonable analyses that might have been performed, these questions will lead to relevant sensitivity analyses, which help to assess the robustness of trial results.

To identify the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in clinical trials assessing interventions for chronic pain, describe their psychometric properties, and the clinical domains they cover.

With the enforcement of social distancing due to the pandemic, a need to conduct postural assessments through remote care arose. So, this study aimed to assess the intra- and inter-rater reproducibility of the Remote Static Posture Assessment (ARPE) protocol’s Postural Checklist. The study involved 51 participants, with the postural assessment conducted by two researchers. For intra-rater reproducibility assessment, one rater administered the ARPE protocol twice, with an interval of 7–days between assessments (test–retest). A second independent rater assessed inter-rater reproducibility. Kappa statistics (k) and percentage agreement (%C) were used, with a significance level of 0.05. The intra-rater reproducibility analysis indicated high reliability, k values varied from 0.921 to 1.0, with %C ranging from 94% to 100% for all items on the ARPE protocol’s Postural Checklist. Inter-rater reproducibility indicates reliability ranging from slight to good, k values exceeded 0.4 for the entire checklist, except for four items: waists in the frontal photograph (k = 0.353), scapulae in the rear photograph (k = 0.310), popliteal line of the knees in the rear photograph (k = 0.270), and foot posture in the rear photograph (k = 0.271). Nonetheless, %C surpassed 50% for all but the scapulae item (%C = 47%). The ARPE protocol’s Postural Checklist is reproducible and can be administered by the same or different raters for static posture assessment. However, when used by distinct raters, the items waists (front of the frontal plane), scapulae, popliteal line of the knees, and feet (rear of the frontal plane) should not be considered.

MABTEC is a RESNET Provider including HERS Rater Training, HERS Rater Provider, ENERGY STAR Rater Certification

Patient reported outcomes (PRO) are variables reflecting the status of a patient's health condition whose values come directly from the patients [1]. PROs differ from other health outcomes because these patient's characteristics cannot be directly observed and are often measured using self-reported questionnaires with Likert-scale responses. For example, a patient's depression can be measured with questions like: “In the past 7 days I felt hopeless” with responses of “Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, and Always.” Outcomes that can be captured by PROs include but are not limited to physical functions, symptoms, global health, adverse effect, psychological well-being, social well-being, cognitive functioning, satisfaction with care, health related quality of life (HRQOL), adherence to medical regimens, etc.

Type 360 is based on personality type patterns that reflect the use of eight mental resources. Your customers can learn how they are perceived and how others want them to flex to be more effective.

With the enforcement of social distancing due to the pandemic, a need to conduct postural assessments through remote care arose. So, this study aimed to assess the intra- and inter-rater reproducibility of the Remote Static Posture Assessment (ARPE) protocol’s Postural Checklist. The study involved 51 participants, with the postural assessment conducted by two researchers. For intra-rater reproducibility assessment, one rater administered the ARPE protocol twice, with an interval of 7–days between assessments (test–retest). A second independent rater assessed inter-rater reproducibility. Kappa statistics (k) and percentage agreement (%C) were used, with a significance level of 0.05. The intra-rater reproducibility analysis indicated high reliability, k values varied from 0.921 to 1.0, with %C ranging from 94% to 100% for all items on the ARPE protocol’s Postural Checklist. Inter-rater reproducibility indicates reliability ranging from slight to good, k values exceeded 0.4 for the entire checklist, except for four items: waists in the frontal photograph (k = 0.353), scapulae in the rear photograph (k = 0.310), popliteal line of the knees in the rear photograph (k = 0.270), and foot posture in the rear photograph (k = 0.271). Nonetheless, %C surpassed 50% for all but the scapulae item (%C = 47%). The ARPE protocol’s Postural Checklist is reproducible and can be administered by the same or different raters for static posture assessment. However, when used by distinct raters, the items waists (front of the frontal plane), scapulae, popliteal line of the knees, and feet (rear of the frontal plane) should not be considered.

Discover how Signant Health's SmartSignals eCOA central ratings solutions ensure accurate scale administration and scoring.

A collection of terms and conditions that outline what you can expect of us, and how we like to run our business. Take a read and email us with any Qs.

The RESNET National Rater Test is an online multiple-choice test. The test is open book and raters have two hours to complete the test.

The Energuy team has been performing professional and courteous HERS Ratings since 2003. You can be sure our scheduling team and our Raters will treat your customer just like you would.

Critical rater staffing gaps jeopardized patient enrollment at various U.S. and European sites for one study. See how Cogstate supported the study team.

For trials that utilize clinical outcome assessments as their study endpoints, rater training is paramount in ensuring data integrity by improving inter-rater reliability. The consequences of inadequate rater training can result in increased measurement error and data variance, significant increases in study costs, and incorrectly failed trials. Which rater training method is most effective?