Item response theory may account for unequal item weighting and individual-level measurement error in trials that use PROMs: a psychometric sensitivity analysis of the TOPKAT trial.

[1]  D. Beard,et al.  Minimal important changes and differences were estimated for Oxford hip and knee scores following primary and revision arthroplasty. , 2021, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[2]  R Chapman,et al.  Expected a posteriori scoring in PROMIS® , 2021, Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes.

[3]  M. Weiss.  Patient-reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) , 2021, OP-JOURNAL.

[4]  James R. Robinson,et al.  The clinical and cost-effectiveness of total versus partial knee replacement in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis (TOPKAT): 5-year outcomes of a randomised controlled trial , 2019, The Lancet.

[5]  G. Riet,et al.  Latent growth modeling of IRT versus CTT measured longitudinal latent variables , 2019, Statistical methods in medical research.

[6]  L. Halsey.  The reign of the p-value is over: what alternative analyses could we employ to fill the power vacuum? , 2019, Biology Letters.

[7]  Matthias Rose,et al.  Scoring Depression on a Common Metric: A Comparison of EAP Estimation, Plausible Value Imputation, and Full Bayesian IRT Modeling , 2018, Multivariate behavioral research.

[8]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Real-world evidence: How pragmatic are randomized controlled trials labeled as pragmatic? , 2018, BMC Medicine.

[9]  D. Burton,et al.  Arthroscopic subacromial decompression for subacromial shoulder pain (CSAW): a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group, randomised surgical trial , 2017, The Lancet.

[10]  J. Twisk,et al.  Measurement model choice influenced randomized controlled trial results. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[11]  Joseph C Cappelleri,et al.  Overview of classical test theory and item response theory for the quantitative assessment of items in developing patient-reported outcomes measures. , 2014, Clinical therapeutics.

[12]  Miyong T Kim,et al.  An Introduction to Item Response Theory for Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement , 2014, The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.

[13]  H. Doll,et al.  Can pain and function be distinguished in the Oxford Knee Score in a meaningful way? An exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis , 2013, Quality of Life Research.

[14]  M. Drummond,et al.  Comparative effectiveness research: the experience of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. , 2012, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[15]  R. Philip Chalmers,et al.  mirt: A Multidimensional Item Response Theory Package for the R Environment , 2012 .

[16]  Juul Achten,et al.  Total hip arthroplasty versus resurfacing arthroplasty in the treatment of patients with arthritis of the hip joint: single centre, parallel group, assessor blinded, randomised controlled trial , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[17]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Combining estimates of interest in prognostic modelling studies after multiple imputation: current practice and guidelines , 2009, BMC medical research methodology.

[18]  Rebecca Holman,et al.  Power analysis in randomized clinical trials based on item response theory. , 2003, Controlled clinical trials.

[19]  RON D. HAYS,et al.  Item Response Theory and Health Outcomes Measurement in the 21st Century , 2000, Medical care.

[20]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials , 1998, BMJ.

[21]  A. Carr,et al.  Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. , 1998, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[22]  Christine E. DeMars,et al.  Item Response Theory , 2010, Assessing Measurement Invariance for Applied Research.