Advertisement

Focused Evidence Review: Psychometric Properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain

  • Elizabeth S. Goldsmith
  • Brent C. Taylor
  • Nancy Greer
  • Maureen Murdoch
  • Roderick MacDonald
  • Lauren McKenzie
  • Christina E. Rosebush
  • Timothy J. Wilt
Review Paper

Abstract

Background

Developing successful interventions for chronic musculoskeletal pain requires valid, responsive, and reliable outcome measures. The Minneapolis VA Evidence-based Synthesis Program completed a focused evidence review on key psychometric properties of 17 self-report measures of pain severity and pain-related functional impairment suitable for clinical research on chronic musculoskeletal pain.

Methods

Pain experts of the VA Pain Measurement Outcomes Workgroup identified 17 pain measures to undergo systematic review. In addition to a MEDLINE search on these 17 measures (1/2000–1/2017), we hand-searched (without publication date limits) the reference lists of all included studies, prior systematic reviews, and—when available—Web sites dedicated to each measure (PROSPERO registration CRD42017056610). Our primary outcome was the measure’s minimal important difference (MID). Secondary outcomes included responsiveness, validity, and test-retest reliability. Outcomes were synthesized through evidence mapping and qualitative comparison.

Results

Of 1635 abstracts identified, 331 articles underwent full-text review, and 43 met inclusion criteria. Five measures (Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), SF-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS)) had data reported on MID, responsiveness, validity, and test-retest reliability. Seven measures had data reported on three of the four psychometric outcomes. Eight measures had reported MIDs, though estimation methods differed substantially and often were not clinically anchored.

Conclusions

In this focused evidence review, the most evidence on key psychometric properties in chronic musculoskeletal pain populations was found for the ODI, RMDQ, SF-36 BPS, NRS, and VAS. Key limitations in the field include substantial variation in methods of estimating psychometric properties, defining chronic musculoskeletal pain, and reporting patient demographics.

Trial Registration

Registered in the PROSPERO database: CRD42017056610

KEY WORDS

chronic pain pain psychometrics systematic review measurement 

Notes

Funders

This work is based on a review supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the US Government.

Prior Presentations

None.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11606_2018_4327_MOESM1_ESM.docx (90 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 90 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Stewart WF, Ricci JA, Chee E, Morgan D, Lipton R. Lost productive time and cost due to common pain conditions in the US workforce. JAMA. 2003;290:2443–2454.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Butchart A, Kerr EA, Heisler M, Piette JD, Krein SL. Experience and management of chronic pain among patients with other complex chronic conditions. Clin J Pain. 2009;25(4):293–298.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gereau RW, Sluka KA, Maixner W, et al. A pain research agenda for the 21st century. J Pain. 2014;15(12):1203–1214.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, et al. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2005;113(1–2):9–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Burke LB, et al. Developing patient-reported outcome measures for pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2006;125(3):208–215.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dworkin RH, Turk DC, McDermott MP, et al. Interpreting the clinical importance of group differences in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2009;146(3):238–244.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Turk DC, Dworkin RH, McDermott MP, et al. Analyzing multiple endpoints in clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations. Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials. Pain. 2008;139(3):485–493.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Taylor AM, Phillips K, Patel KV, et al. Assessment of physical function and participation in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT/OMERACT recommendations. Pain. 2016;157(9):1836–1850.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deyo RA, Dworkin SF, Amtmann D, et al. Report of the NIH Task Force on Research Standards for Chronic Low Back Pain. J Pain. 2014;15(6):569–585.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Revicki D, et al. Identifying important outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: an IMMPACT survey of people with pain. Pain. 2008;137(2):276–285.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Younger J, McCue R, Mackey S. Pain outcomes: a brief review of instruments and techniques. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2009;13(1):39–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(4):539–549.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goldsmith ES, Murdoch M, Taylor B, et al. Rapid evidence review: measures for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Washington, DC: Department of Veterans Affairs; VA Evidence-based Synthesis Program Reports. 2017; http://vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/esp/chronicpain-measures.cfm. Accessed 11/9/2017.
  14. 14.
    Cleeland CS, Ryan KM. Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 1994;23(2):129–138.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Buckenmaier CC 3rd, Galloway KT, Polomano RC, McDuffie M, Kwon N, Gallagher RM. Preliminary validation of the Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale (DVPRS) in a military population. Pain Med. 2013;14(1):110–123.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Von Korff M, Ormel J, Keefe FJ, Dworkin SF. Grading the severity of chronic pain. Pain. 1992;50(2):133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klassbo M, Larsson E, Mannevik E. Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score: an extension of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Scand J Rheumatol. 2003;32:46–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roos EM, Lohmander LS. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McCaffery M, Beebe A. Pain: Clinical Manural for Nursing Practices. St. Louis, MO; 1989.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kerns RD, Turk DC, Rudy TE. The West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (WHYMPI). Pain. 1985;23(4):345–356.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smeets R, Koke A, Lin CW, Ferreira M, Demoulin C. Measures of function in low back pain/disorders: Low Back Pain Rating Scale (LBPRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Progressive Isoinertial Lifting Evaluation (PILE), Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS), and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ). Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63 Suppl 11:S158–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Farrar JT, Young JP Jr., LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole RM. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain. 2001;94(2):149–158.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Krebs EE, Lorenz KA, Bair MJ, et al. Development and initial validation of the PEG, a three-item scale assessing pain intensity and interference. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(6):733–738.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pain interference: a brief guide to the PROMIS pain interference instruments. 2015; https://www.assessmentcenter.net/documents/PROMIS%20Pain%20Interference%20Scoring%20Manual.pdf. Accessed 11/8/2017.
  25. 25.
    Roland MO. The natural history of back pain. Practitioner. 1983;227(1381):1119–1122.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ware JE Jr., Gandek B. Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):903–912.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wewers ME, Lowe NK. A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Res Nurs Health. 1990;13(4):227–236.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    American College of Rheumatology. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). 2017; http://www.rheumatology.org/I-Am-A/Rheumatologist/Research/Clinician-Researchers/Western-Ontario-McMaster-Universities-Osteoarthritis-Index-WOMAC. Accessed 11/8/2017.
  29. 29.
    Wong-Baker FACES® history. 2016. http://wongbakerfaces.org/us/wong-baker-faces-history/. Accessed 11/8/2017.
  30. 30.
    Anagnostis C, Gatchel RJ, Mayer TG. The pain disability questionnaire: a new psychometrically sound measure for chronic musculoskeletal disorders. Spine. 2004;29(20):2290–2302.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Askew RL, Cook KF, Revicki D, Cella D, Amtmann D. Evidence from diverse clinical populations supported clinical validity of PROMIS pain interference and pain behavior. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;73:103–111.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Burnham R, Stanford G, Gray L. An assessment of a short composite questionnaire designed for use in an interventional spine pain management setting. PM R. 2012;4(6):413–418.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Changulani M, Shaju A. Evaluation of responsiveness of Oswestry low back pain disability index. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009;129(5):691–694.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chansirinukor W, Maher CG, Latimer J, Hush J. Comparison of the functional rating index and the 18-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire: responsiveness and reliability. Spine. 2005;30(1):141–145.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Chien CW, Bagraith KS, Khan A, Deen M, Strong J. Comparative responsiveness of verbal and numerical rating scales to measure pain intensity in patients with chronic pain. J Pain. 2013;14(12):1653–1662.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cook KF, Choi SW, Crane PK, Deyo RA, Johnson KL, Amtmann D. Letting the CAT out of the bag: comparing computer adaptive tests and an 11-item short form of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Spine. 2008;33(12):1378–1383.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    de Vet HC, Ostelo RW, Terwee CB, et al. Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(1):131–142.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Deyo RA, Katrina R, Buckley DI, et al. Performance of a Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Short Form in older adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Pain Med. 2016;17(2):314–324.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Driban JB, Morgan N, Price LL, Cook KF, Wang C. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) instruments among individuals with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional study of floor/ceiling effects and construct validity. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fisher K, Johnston M. Validation of the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire, its sensitivity as a measure of change following treatment and its relationship with other aspects of the chronic pain experience. Physiother Theory Pract. 1997;13:67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gallasch CH, Alexandre NM. The measurement of musculoskeletal pain intensity: a comparison of four methods. Rev Gaucha Enferm. 2007;28(2):260–265.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gentelle-Bonnassies S, Le Claire P, Mezieres M, Ayral X, Dougados M. Comparison of the responsiveness of symptomatic outcome measures in knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 2000;13(5):280–285.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Godil SS, Parker SL, Zuckerman SL, Mendenhall SK, McGirt MJ. Accurately measuring the quality and effectiveness of cervical spine surgery in registry efforts: determining the most valid and responsive instruments. Spine J. 2015;15(6):1203–1209.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gronblad M, Hupli M, Wennerstrand P, et al. Intercorrelation and test-retest reliability of the Pain Disability Index (PDI) and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) and their correlation with pain intensity in low back pain patients. Clin J Pain. 1993;9:189–195.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hicks GE, Manal TJ. Psychometric properties of commonly used low back disability questionnaires: are they useful for older adults with low back pain? Pain Med. 2009;10(1):85–94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jensen MP, Schnitzer TJ, Wang H, Smugar SS, Peloso PM, Gammaitoni A. Sensitivity of single-domain versus multiple-domain outcome measures to identify responders in chronic low-back pain: pooled analysis of 2 placebo-controlled trials of etoricoxib. Clin J Pain. 2012;28(1):1–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kamper SJ, Grootjans SJ, Michaleff ZA, Maher CG, McAuley JH, Sterling M. Measuring pain intensity in patients with neck pain: does it matter how you do it? Pain Pract. 2015;15(2):159–167.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kean J, Monahan PO, Kroenke K, et al. Comparative responsiveness of the PROMIS Pain Interference Short Forms, Brief Pain Inventory, PEG, and SF-36 Bodily Pain Subscale. Med Care. 2016;54(4):414–421.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Keller S, Bann CM, Dodd SL, Schein J, Mendoza TR, Cleeland CS. Validity of the Brief Pain Inventory for use in documenting the outcomes of patients with noncancer pain. Clin J Pain. 2004;20:309–318.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Krebs EE, Bair MJ, Damush TM, Tu W, Wu J, Kroenke K. Comparative responsiveness of pain outcome measures among primary care patients with musculoskeletal pain. Med Care. 2010;48(11):1007–1014.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Krebs EE, Carey TS, Weinberger M. Accuracy of the pain numeric rating scale as a screening test in primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(10):1453–1458.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lovejoy TI, Turk DC, Morasco BJ. Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the revised short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire. J Pain. 2012;13(12):1250–1257.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lund I, Lundeberg T, Sandberg L, Budh CN, Kowalski J, Svensson E. Lack of interchangeability between visual analogue and verbal rating pain scales: a cross sectional description of pain etiology groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Macedo LG, Maher CG, Latimer J, Hancock MJ, Machado LA, McAuley JH. Responsiveness of the 24-, 18- and 11-item versions of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(3):458–463.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Maughan EF, Lewis JS. Outcome measures in chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2010;19:1484–1494.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Merriwether EN, Rakel BA, Zimmerman MB, et al. Reliability and construct validity of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) instruments in women with fibromyalgia. Pain Med. 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnw187.
  57. 57.
    Mikail SF, DuBreuil S, D'eon JL. A comparative analysis of measures used in the assessment of chronic pain patients. Psychol Assess. 1993;5(1):117–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Nilsdotter AK, Lohmander LS, Klassbo M, Roos EM. Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS)—validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2003;4:10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Parker SL, McGirt MJ. Determination of the minimum improvement in pain, disability, and health state associated with cost-effectiveness: introduction of the concept of minimum cost-effective difference. Neurosurgery. 2012;71(6):1149–1155.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Pinsker E, Inrig T, Daniels TR, Warmington K, Beaton DE. Reliability and validity of 6 measures of pain, function, and disability for ankle arthroplasty and arthrodesis. Foot Ankle Int. 2015;36(6):617–625.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Scott W, McCracken LM. Patients’ impression of change following treatment for chronic pain: global, specific, a single dimension, or many? J Pain. 2015;16(6):518–526.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Sindhu BS, Shechtman O, Tuckey L. Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of a digital version of the visual analog scale. J Hand Ther. 2011;24(4):356–363.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Stewart M, Maher CG, Refshauge KM, Bogduk N, Nicholas M. Responsiveness of pain and disability measures for chronic whiplash. Spine. 2007;32(5):580–585.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Stroud MW, McKnight PE, Jensen MP. Assessment of self-reported physical activity in patients with chronic pain: development of an abbreviated Roland-Morris disability scale. J Pain. 2004;5(5):257–263.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Tan G, Jensen MP, Thornby JI, Shanti BF. Validation of the Brief Pain Inventory for chronic nonmalignant pain. J Pain. 2004;5(2):133–137.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Tong HC, Geisser ME, Ignaczak AP. Ability of early response to predict discharge outcomes with physical therapy for chronic low back pain. Pain Pract. 2006;6(3):166–170.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Trudeau J, Van Inwegen R, Eaton T, et al. Assessment of pain and activity using an electronic pain diary and actigraphy device in a randomized, placebo-controlled crossover trial of celecoxib in osteoarthritis of the knee. Pain Pract. 2015;15(3):247–255.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    van der Roer N, Ostelo RW, Bekkering GE, van Tulder MW, de Vet HC. Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity, functional status, and general health status in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Spine. 2006;31(5):578–582.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    van Grootel RJ, van der Bilt A, van der Glas HW. Long-term reliable change of pain scores in individual myogenous TMD patients. Eur J Pain. 2007;11(6):635–643.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Wittink H, Turk DC, Carr DB, Sukiennik A, Rogers W. Comparison of the redundancy, reliability, and responsiveness to change among SF-36, Oswestry Disability Index, and Multidimensional Pain Inventory. Clin J Pain. 2004;20(3):133–142.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Cleland J, Gillani R, Bienen EJ, Sadosky A. Assessing dimensionality and responsiveness of outcomes measures for patients with low back pain. Pain Pract. 2011;11(1):57–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Grotle M, Brox J, Vollestad N. Functional Status and Disability Questionnaires: what do they assess?: A systematic review of Back-Specific Outcome Questionnaires. Spine. 2005;30(1):130–140.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–109.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(5):395–407.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Turner D, Schunemann HJ, Griffith LE, et al. The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(1):28–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kroenke K, Spitzer RL. Gender differences in the reporting of physical and somatoform symptoms. Psychosom Med. 1998;60(2):150–155.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Fillingim RB, King CD, Ribeiro-Dasilva MC, Rahim-Williams B, Riley JL 3rd. Sex, gender, and pain: a review of recent clinical and experimental findings. J Pain. 2009;10(5):447–485.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Wyrwich KW, et al. Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain. 2008;9(2):105–121.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Von Korff M. Assessment of chronic pain in epidemiological and health services research. New York: Guilford Publications; 2011.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Booker SS, Herr K. The state-of-“cultural validity” of self-report pain assessment tools in diverse older adults. Pain Med. 2014;16(2):232–239.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Tait RC, Chibnall JT. Racial/ethnic disparities in the assessment and treatment of pain: psychosocial perspectives. Am Psychol. 2014;69(2):131–141.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186–3191.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Miake-Lye IM, Hempel S, Shanman R, Shekelle PG. What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products. Syst Rev. 2016;5:28.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine (outside the USA) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth S. Goldsmith
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Brent C. Taylor
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • Nancy Greer
    • 1
  • Maureen Murdoch
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Roderick MacDonald
    • 1
  • Lauren McKenzie
    • 1
  • Christina E. Rosebush
    • 1
  • Timothy J. Wilt
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research (CCDOR)Minneapolis VA Health Care SystemMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Section General Internal MedicineMinneapolis VA Health Care SystemMinneapolisUSA
  3. 3.University of Minnesota School of Public HealthMinneapolisUSA
  4. 4.University of Minnesota Medical SchoolMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations