Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18836850›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2008

Patient reported outcome measures: a model-based classification system for research and clinical practice.

Jose M Valderas, Jordi Alonso

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 130 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
130citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
–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

130 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Understanding factors impacting patient-reported outcome measures integration in routine clinical practice: an umbrella review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Patient-reported outcome measures in Arabic-speaking populations: a systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2019
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Systematic review of health-related quality of life models.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2012
    Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Using patient-reported outcome measures to deliver enhanced supportive care to people with lung cancer: feasibility and acceptability of a nurse-led consultation model.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018
    Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

70 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Jose M ValderasNational School for Primary Care Research, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Williamson Building, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. jose.valderas@manchester.ac.uk
Jordi Alonso

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe umbrella term Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) has been successfully proposed for instruments measuring perceived health outcomes, but its relationship to current conceptual models remains to be established. Our aim was to develop a classification system for PRO measures based on a valid conceptual model.

methodsWe reviewed models and classification schemes of health outcomes and integrated them in a common conceptual framework, based on the models by Wilson and Cleary and the International Classification of Functioning (ICF). We developed a cross-classification system based on the minimum common set of consistent concepts identified in previous classifications, and specified categories based on the WHO International Classifications (ICD-10, and ICF). We exemplified the use of the classification system with selected PRO instruments.

resultsWe identified three guiding concepts: (1) construct (the measurement object); (2) population (based on age, gender, condition, and culture); and (3) measurement model (dimensionality, metric, and adaptability). The application of the system to selected PRO measures demonstrated the feasibility of its use, and showed that most of them actually assess more than one construct.

conclusionThis classification system of PRO measures, based on a valid integrated conceptual model, should allow the classification of most currently used instruments and may facilitate a more adequate selection and application of these instruments.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchCritical PathwaysModels, TheoreticalFemaleHumansMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CareResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID18836850

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.