Key result
The Chinese version of the PROMIS-29 demonstrated acceptable structural validity (CFI 0.97), construct validity, and excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α > 0.90) in aortic dissection survivors.
Why the study?
The PROMIS-29 has been widely used to measure patient-reported outcomes but had not been validated in adults with aortic disease.
Is the Chinese version of the PROMIS-29 a valid and reliable tool for measuring patient-reported outcomes in patients with aortic dissection?
Cross-Sectional (n=327)
No
Is the Chinese version of the PROMIS-29 a valid and reliable tool for measuring patient-reported outcomes in patients with aortic dissection?
The Chinese version of the PROMIS-29 is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing patient-reported outcomes in survivors of aortic dissection surgery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Supports Chinese PROMIS-29 for PRO assessment in aortic dissection survivors; extends validation to this population but leaves responsiveness open.
Huang et al. (2022) conducted a cross-sectional in Aortic dissection (n=327). Chinese version of the PROMIS-29 profile vs. Legacy measures (SF-12, SSS-8, GAD-2, PHQ-2) was evaluated on Structural validity, construct validity, and internal consistency of the PROMIS-29. The Chinese version of the PROMIS-29 demonstrated acceptable structural validity (CFI 0.97), construct validity, and excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α > 0.90) in aortic dissection survivors.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: