Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24072624›Full record

ReviewClinical orthopaedics and related research2013

Stakeholders in outcome measures: review from a clinical perspective.

Mark R Brinker, Daniel P O'Connor

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Facing up to the challenges of advancing Craniofacial Research.American journal of medical genetics. Part A · 2015
    Article
  10. Functional outcomes assessment in shoulder surgery.World journal of orthopedics · 2014
    Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mark R BrinkerFondren Orthopedic Group, Texas Orthopedic Hospital, 7401 S Main Street, Houston, TX, USA, dano@jwkoi.com.
Daniel P O'Connor
Texas Orthopedic Hospital · USUniversity of Houston · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundModern interest in patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) in orthopaedics dates back to the mid-1980s. While gradual growth of activity in this area has occurred over the past 25 years, the extent to which this research methodology is applied in clinical practice to improve patient care is unclear. WHERE ARE WE NOW?: Historically, clinical research in orthopaedics has focused on the technical success of treatment, and objective indicators such as mortality, morbidity, and complications. By contrast, the PROMs framework focuses on effects of treatment described in terms of relief of symptoms, restoring functional ability, and improving quality of life. PROMs can be used to study the relative effects of disease, injury, and treatment across different health conditions. WHERE DO WE NEED TO GO?: All clinical research should begin with identifying clear and meaningful research questions so that the resources and efforts required for data collection result in useful data. Different consumers of research data have different perspectives on what comprises meaningful information. Involving stakeholders such as patients, providers, payers, and policy-makers when defining priorities in the larger research endeavor is one way to inform what type of data should be collected in a particular study. HOW DO WE GET THERE?: Widespread collection of outcomes data would potentially aid these stakeholders by identifying best practices, benefits and costs, and important patient or practice characteristics related to outcomes. Several initiatives currently underway may help systematic collection of PROMs, create efficient systems, and foster collaborations to provide support and resources to minimize costs.

Indexed as

Orthopedic ProceduresOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareQuality Indicators, Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesHealth Services ResearchHealth StatusHealth Status IndicatorsHumansMental HealthPredictive Value of TestsQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality of LifeTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID24072624
PMCPMC3792283
OpenAlexW2010492720

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.