ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2006
Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 5 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 2,336 papers, 18 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Development, Validation and Evaluation of an Adult and Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis Activity Index: A Prospective Multicenter Study
Phase 3 Trial of Dichloroacetate in Pyruvate Dehydrogenase Complex Deficiency:
PRECYCLE: Multicenter, Randomized Phase IV Intergroup Trial to Evaluate the Impact of eHealth-based Patient Reported Outcome (PRO) Assessment on Quality of Life in Patients With Hormone Receptor Positive, HER2 Negative Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer Treated With Palbociclib and an Aromatase Inhibitor- or Palbociclib and Fulvestrant
Effectiveness of a Multidimensional Mobile App Intervention "WOMAN-PRO III" to Reduce Postsurgical Symptom Induced Distress in Patients With Vulvar Neoplasia: A Mixed Methods Project
Impact on the Quality of Life of Dialysis Patients of the Routine Collection of Symptoms by the Patients Themselves, With Feedback to the Dialysis Team - Pilot Study
Who cites it
2,336 citing papers in PubMed, 18 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments in Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer (NMIBC): A Systematic Review.Oncology and therapy · 2026Pooled it
- Equity, evidence and indigenous knowledges in PROMs in Australian injury research: a systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Pooled it
- Measurement properties of Chinese-version assessment tools of self-efficacy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a COSMIN-based systematic review.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Pooled it
- Patient-reported measures of physical activity level for older adults in the home care setting: a systematic review and assessment of psychometric properties.BMC geriatrics · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Toward Better Response Assessment of Cutaneous Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease: A Report from the National Institutes of Health Consensus Project Task Force.Transplantation and cellular therapy · 2026Guideline
- 'What' and 'How' to Measure in Allergy and Clinical Immunology: A Systematic Review of Core Outcome Sets and Outcome Harmonisation Processes.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2026Pooled it
- Health-related quality of life in patients with obstructive sleep apnea - a systematic review update assessing the quality of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures.Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung · 2026Pooled it
- Effect of healthcare professional-delivered health literacy interventions on patient reported outcomes in cancer patients - a systematic review.BMC cancer · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence and patient reported outcomes in ophthalmology.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Pooled it
- Raising the patient's voice in influenza research and care: a systematic review of patient-reported outcomes.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Patient- and Clinician-Reported Outcomes and the Outcome Measures in Studies Reporting on Rehabilitation of the Edentulous Maxilla With Implant-Supported Fixed Prosthesis Using Short, Standard-Length and/or Zygomatic Implants: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies Published in the Last 10 Years.Clinical oral implants research · 2026Pooled it
- Patient- and Clinician-Reported Outcomes and Outcome Measures for Edentulous Maxilla Rehabilitated With Implant-Assisted Overdentures: A Systematic Review.Clinical oral implants research · 2026Pooled it
- What patient reported outcome measures are used in clinical trials in hip fracture? A systematic mapping review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Pooled it
- Are the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Measures Validated for Common Non-English Languages and Associated Cultures in the United States? A Systematic Review.The Journal of arthroplasty · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluating patient-reported outcomes in randomized controlled trials of targeted therapy and/or immunotherapy for liver cancer: a scoping review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Measurement properties of Chinese-version assessment tools of health-related quality of life in patients with stroke: a systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Pooled it
- Patient-Reported and Clinician-Reported Esthetic Outcomes at Implant Sites Are Not Associated: A Systematic Review With Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis.Clinical oral implants research · 2025Pooled it
- Assessing signs and impacts of achondroplasia: psychometric evaluation of the Achondroplasia Child Experience Measures.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Trial
- OnabotulinumtoxinA Treatment for Masseter Muscle Prominence: 6-Month Safety and Efficacy Results, Including Patient-Reported Outcomes, From a Phase 3, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Multiregional Trial.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2026Trial
2,276 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This guidance describes how the FDA evaluates patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments used as effectiveness endpoints in clinical trials. It also describes our current thinking on how sponsors can develop and use study results measured by PRO instruments to support claims in approved product labeling (see appendix point 1). It does not address the use of PRO instruments for purposes beyond evaluation of claims made about a drug or medical product in its labeling. By explicitly addressing the review issues identified in this guidance, sponsors can increase the efficiency of their endpoint discussions with the FDA during the product development process, streamline the FDA's review of PRO endpoint adequacy, and provide optimal information about the patient's perspective of treatment benefit at the time of product approval. A PRO is a measurement of any aspect of a patient's health status that comes directly from the patient (i.e., without the interpretation of the patient's responses by a physician or anyone else). In clinical trials, a PRO instrument can be used to measure the impact of an intervention on one or more aspects of patients' health status, hereafter referred to as PRO concepts, ranging from the purely symptomatic (response of a headache) to more complex concepts (e.g., ability to carry out activities of daily living), to extremely complex concepts such as quality of life, which is widely understood to be a multidomain concept with physical, psychological, and social components. Data generated by a PRO instrument can provide evidence of a treatment benefit from the patient perspective. For this data to be meaningful, however, there should be evidence that the PRO instrument effectively measures the particular concept that is studied. Generally, findings measured by PRO instruments may be used to support claims in approved product labeling if the claims are derived from adequate and well-controlled investigations that use PRO instruments that reliably and validly measure the specific concepts at issue. The glossary defines many of the terms used in this guidance. In particular, the term instrument refers to the actual questions or items contained in a questionnaire or interview schedule along with all the additional information and documentation that supports the use of these items in producing a PRO measure (e.g., interviewer training and instructions, scoring and interpretation manual). The term conceptual framework refers to how items are grouped according to subconcepts or domains (e.g., the item walking without help may be grouped with another item, walking with difficulty, within the domain of ambulation, and ambulation may be further grouped into the concept of physical ability). FDA's guidance documents, including this guidance, do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities. Instead, guidance documents describe the Agency's current thinking on a topic and should be viewed only as recommendations, unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited. The use of the word should in Agency guidance documents means that something is suggested or recommended but not required. First publication of the Draft Guidance by the Food and Drug Administration--February 2006.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.