As the implementation of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scales has increased, so has the number of studies linking legacy scale scores to PROMIS scale scores. Variability in linked scores for a given PROMIS score can be considerable, leading to potential bias. An alternative method is imputation using a bridge study. We sought to compare linking to this alternative novel method in group-level analyses using linked legacy scores. Adult patients who completed PROMIS Depression and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) were included. We randomly allocated data samples to be missing either PROMIS Depression or PHQ-9. We estimated PROMIS T scores using six methods: Linking methods by Choi et al. (2014), linking in our internal data, imputation using bridge study data from external data and from our internal data, each with and without patient demographics. Estimated mean PROMIS T scores using the linking and imputation methods were compared to actual PROMIS T scores across varying proportions of missingness and sample size. We also compared regression coefficients for the six estimation methods to a model using actual PROMIS T scores. Mean estimated versus actual PROMIS T scores varied between 1 and 4 points for the linking methods and within 0.4 points for the imputation method using internal data with patient demographics. The imputation methods had estimated regression coefficients closer to that of the model using actual scores as compared to the linking methods. For group-level analyses, imputation using a bridge study may be a feasible alternative to using linked scores or can be used as a sensitivity analysis. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

组级别分析，涉及从传统量表到PROMIS量表的得分：一种使用归因的新颖替代方法。

随着患者报告结果测量信息系统（PROMIS）量表的实施不断增加，将遗留量表评分与PROMIS量表链接相关的研究数量也在增加。对于给定的PROMIS分数，链接分数的差异可能很大，从而可能导致偏差。另一种方法是使用桥梁算例进行插补。我们试图在使用链接的遗留分数的组级别分析中比较此替代新颖方法的链接。包括完成PROMIS抑郁症和患者健康调查表（PH​​Q-9）的成年患者。我们随机分配数据样本以丢失PROMIS Depression或PHQ-9。我们使用以下六种方法估算了PROMIS T分数：Choi等人的链接方法。（2014），将我们的内部数据链接起来，使用来自外部数据和我们内部数据的桥梁研究数据进行推算，每个有或没有患者的人口统计信息。将使用链接和插补方法估算的平均PROMIS T得分与不同比例的缺失和样本量下的实际PROMIS T得分进行比较。我们还使用实际的PROMIS T分数将这6种估算方法的回归系数与模型进行了比较。使用内部数据和患者人口统计数据，平均估算与实际PROMIS T得分之间的联系方法介于1-4分之间，插补方法的平均得分在0.4分之间。与链接方法相比，插补方法使用实际分数估算出的回归系数更接近于模型的回归系数。对于小组级别的分析，使用桥算术进行插补可能是使用链接评分的一种可行替代方法，或者可以用作敏感性分析。（PsycInfo数据库记录（c）2021 APA，