ArticleBMC medical research methodology2011
Pre-validation methods for developing a patient reported outcome instrument.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments Relevant to Glaucoma.Journal of glaucoma · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic review of patient reported outcomes and patient experience in enhanced recovery after orthopaedic surgery.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2014Pooled it
- Trial
- Preferences for Healthcare Delivery in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS): A Survey of Patients and Caregivers in the United States.The patient · 2026Observational
- Patient-Reported Importance of Functional Benefit in Geographic Atrophy.JAMA ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Cueing-assisted gamified augmented-reality gait-and-balance rehabilitation at home for people with Parkinson's disease: protocol of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial implemented in the clinical pathway.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Development of a theory-informed questionnaire to assess the acceptability of healthcare interventions.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Usage of glaucoma-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the Singapore context: a qualitative scoping exercise.BMC ophthalmology · 2018Article
- Article
- Validation of a free fall acrobatics intervention protocol to reduce neck loads during parachute opening shock.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2015Article
- Theoretical and empirical dimensions of the Aberdeen Glaucoma Questionnaire: a cross sectional survey and principal component analysis.BMC ophthalmology · 2013Article
- Linking NHS data for pediatric pharmacovigilance: Results of a Delphi survey.Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMeasures that reflect patients' assessment of their health are of increasing importance as outcome measures in randomised controlled trials. The methodological approach used in the pre-validation development of new instruments (item generation, item reduction and question formatting) should be robust and transparent. The totality of the content of existing PRO instruments for a specific condition provides a valuable resource (pool of items) that can be utilised to develop new instruments. Such 'top down' approaches are common, but the explicit pre-validation methods are often poorly reported. This paper presents a systematic and generalisable 5-step pre-validation PRO instrument methodology.
methodsThe method is illustrated using the example of the Aberdeen Glaucoma Questionnaire (AGQ). The five steps are: 1) Generation of a pool of items; 2) Item de-duplication (three phases); 3) Item reduction (two phases); 4) Assessment of the remaining items' content coverage against a pre-existing theoretical framework appropriate to the objectives of the instrument and the target population (e.g. ICF); and 5) qualitative exploration of the target populations' views of the new instrument and the items it contains.
resultsThe AGQ 'item pool' contained 725 items. Three de-duplication phases resulted in reduction of 91, 225 and 48 items respectively. The item reduction phases discarded 70 items and 208 items respectively. The draft AGQ contained 83 items with good content coverage. The qualitative exploration ('think aloud' study) resulted in removal of a further 15 items and refinement to the wording of others. The resultant draft AGQ contained 68 items.
conclusionsThis study presents a novel methodology for developing a PRO instrument, based on three sources: literature reporting what is important to patient; theoretically coherent framework; and patients' experience of completing the instrument. By systematically accounting for all items dropped after the item generation phase, our method ensures that the AGQ is developed in a transparent, replicable manner and is fit for validation. We recommend this method to enhance the likelihood that new PRO instruments will be appropriate to the research context in which they are used, acceptable to research participants and likely to generate valid data.
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.