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