promis-pf (ProMIS Neurosciences)

About

News

Press Release

Team

Advisors

Partners

Contact

Bioz Stars

Bioz vStars

Buy from Supplier

Structured Review

ProMIS Neurosciences promis-pf
Promis Pf, supplied by ProMIS Neurosciences, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/promis-pf/promis+pf/pmc11390056__painreports___9___e1185___s001-726-1-67
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews

promis-pf - by Bioz Stars, 2026-09

90/100 stars

Images

other:

Article Title: Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments in the Preoperative Evaluation of Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Article Snippet: Additionally, fifth digit 2-point discrimination significantly correlated with PROMIS-PF ( r = −0.518, P = .02), PROMIS-UE ( r = −0.459, P = .04), and DASH ( r = 0.550, P = .01) scores.

Article Title: Clinical and patient-reported outcomes of distal femur fracture fixation in adults aged 18-50 years.
Article Snippet: The difference between PROMIS-PF and the US reference population mean of 50 was assessed using onesample t-test as visual inspection of histograms demonstrated an approximately normal distribution of physical function scores, whereas differences between PROMIS anxiety and PROMIS depression and the US reference population mean were assessed using one-sample Wilcoxon Rank-sum test as data were not normally distributed.

Article Title: Clinical and patient-reported outcomes of distal femur fracture fixation in adults aged 18-50 years.
Article Snippet: 20 In this study, the median PROMIS-PF score was lower than the average population score in the US (47 vs. 50) at an average follow-up of 9.8 years after treatment.

Article Title: Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments in the Preoperative Evaluation of Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Article Snippet: To our knowledge, only one study has investigated the role of PROMIS in the assessment of CuTS, while PRUNE has long been accepted as a validated instrument and incorporated in numerous studies., , , , Phan et al demonstrated that PROMIS-PF, PROMIS-UE, and PROMIS-PI exhibits sufficient sensitivity to track postoperative symptom improvement up to 6-weeks following cubital tunnel decompression surgery but lacked the sensitivity to track improvement beyond a 6-week time point.

Article Title: Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments in the Preoperative Evaluation of Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Article Snippet: All other PROMs significantly correlated with sensory amplitude: PROMIS-PF ( r = 0.669, P < .01), PROMIS-PI ( r = −0.490, P = .02), PROMIS-UE ( r = 0.467, P = .03), and DASH ( r = −0.600, P < .01) ( ).

Article Title: eTable5. GRADE assessment of confidence in the evidence for each analysis eTable6. Narrative synthesis result summary (insufficient data for meta-analysis) eTable7. The effect of adjunctive hypnosis on pain intensity for mid-intervention and post-interventions follow-ups eTable8. The effect of adjunctive hypnosis on medication, secondary outcomes eTable9. Results of sensitivity analyses on meta-analytical findings for adjunctive hypnosis. eTable10. Hypnotisability characteristics of samples and associations between hypnotisability and pain reduction. eFigure1. Funnel plot of usual care comparisons eFigure2. Association between the number of hypnosis session and the mean difference in pain be
Article Snippet: Depression: SMD: 0.33, -0.32 to 0.97, n=54, I2= 24%, three comparisons (Lee 2019; Surmam 1974) Study Primary outcome of the original study Secondary outcomes Mean Difference (95% CI) Hanley 2021* Not stated [1] Pain unpleasantness (NRS) [2] Pain medication desire (NRS) [3] Anxiety (NRS) Comparator – mindfulness: [1] 0.00 [-1.13, 1.12] [2] -0.10 [-0.34, 0.14] [3] -0.36 [-1.59, 0.87] 132 [4] Physical function (6 weeks follow up, PROMIS-PF) [4] 2.51 [-1.29, 6.31] Comparator – additional cognitive education: [1]-0.67 [-1.83, 0.49] [2] -0.16 [-0.37, 0.05] [3] -1.36 [-2.43, -0.29] favours adjunctive hypnosis [4] 3.72 [-0.15, 7.59] Lee 2019 Pain intensity [1] Anxiety (HADS) [2] Depression (HADS) [3] Pain catastrophising (PCS) [4] Pain interference (BPI) [1] -4.75 [-8.61, -0.89] favours adjunctive hypnosis [2] -0.50 [-4.42, 3.42] [3] -11.75 [-21.52, -1.98] favours adjunctive hypnosis [4: 1 month] 10.37 [0.33, 20.41] favours comparator group [4: 3 months] 2.63 [-5.71, 10.97] [4: 6 months] -3.88 [-10.80, 3.04] Surman 1974 Not stated [1] Depression (0-3 scale) [2] Anxiety (0-3 scale) [1] -0.30 [-0.02, 0.62] [2] 0.10 [-0.32, 0.52] OTHER OUTCOMES (e.g., anxiety, sleep) PHARMACOLOGICAL INTERVENTION PLUS HYPNOSIS vs PHARMACOLOGICAL INTERVENTION ALONE CHRONIC PAIN Pooled results (when possible) Not pooled.

Article Title: The association between prehabilitation participation and spine surgery outcomes.
Article Snippet: A higher PROMIS-PF T-score represents greater physical function.

Article Title: The association between prehabilitation participation and spine surgery outcomes.
Article Snippet: The outcomes of length of stay, discharge disposition, 30- and 90-day readmission, 30- and 90-day ED visits, PROMIS-D, PROMIS-PI, and PROMIS-PF scores were measured.

Review

promis-pf (ProMIS Neurosciences)

Structured Review

Images

Related Articles

other:

Similar Products

Image Search Results