Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12201791›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2002

Prospective study designs in outcomes research: the case of migraine.

Elizabeth A Rothermich, Meryl I Brod, Warren H Schonfeld, Clayton R Rowland, Baltazar Gomez-Mancilla

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Validation of the Italian version of the Cluster Headache Impact Questionnaire (CHIQ).Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Elizabeth A RothermichQuintiles Late Phase, San Francisco, California 94107, USA. betsy.rothermich@quintiles.com
Meryl I Brod
Warren H Schonfeld
Clayton R Rowland
Baltazar Gomez-Mancilla

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including resource utilisation, productivity and quality of life, are important outcomes in the field of migraine. Clinical trials have begun to incorporate PROs; however, not all research questions can be answered fully within the framework of a clinical trial design. Other prospective designs, including effectiveness trials, observational studies, and study hybrids may be used to answer many of the different research questions related to PROs. This paper reviews prospective study designs, their strengths and weaknesses, and examples of their application in migraine health-outcomes research. Guidance is provided for researchers in the selection of prospective research designs and the incorporation of PROs-research objectives.

Indexed as

Prospective StudiesResearch DesignTreatment OutcomeClinical Trials as TopicHumansMigraine Disorders

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.