Skip to main content

Table 4 Responsiveness of the PROMIS-PF and Worst Stiffness NRS from Baseline to Week 25

From: Psychometric properties of a custom Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function short form and worst stiffness numeric rating scale in tenosynovial giant cell tumors

   Change in PGRC-Physical Functioning Overall
F-value
(P-value)1
P-value2
  Worsened
( + 1 or greater)
No change Improved
( − 1 or lower)
Missing N N LS mean (SE) N LS mean (SE) N LS mean (SE)
PROMIS Physical Function 64 9 −4.21 (2.46) 20 −1.35 (1.91) 27 5.05 (2.12) 3.93 (0.0002) 1: 0.2773 / 2:< 0.0001 / 3: 0.0002
   Change in PGRC-Physical Functioning Overall F-value (P-value)1
  Worsened ( + 1 or greater), No change Improved ( − 1 or lower)
Missing N N LS mean (SE) N LS mean (SE)
PROMIS Physical Function 64 29 −1.66 (1.94) 27 5.95 (2.09) 3.86 (0.0003)
   Change in PGIC-Stiffness Overall F-value
(P-value)1
P-value2
  Worsened
( − 1 or lower)
No change Improved
( + 1 or greater)
Missing N N LS mean (SE) N LS mean (SE) N LS mean (SE)
Worst Stiffness NRS 74 9 −0.15 (1.04) 14 −2.53 (1.13) 23 −4.36 (0.97) 4.75 (0.0001) 1: 0.0367 / 2:< 0.0001 / 3: 0.0434
   Change in PGIC-Stiffness Overall F-value (P-value)1
  Worsened ( − 1 or lower), No change Improved ( + 1 or greater)
Missing N N LS mean (SE) N LS mean (SE)
Worst Stiffness NRS 74 23 −1.06 (1.08) 23 −3.93 (1.04) 3.80 (0.0010)
  1. 1General linear model (PROC GLM) controlling for baseline score, age, gender, race, and tumor location
  2. 2Pairwise comparisons between LS means were performed using Scheffe’s test adjusting for multiple comparisons
  3. 1 = worsened vs. no change; 2 = worsened vs. improved; 3 = no change vs. improved