ArticleDrug safety2013
Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Safety Event Reporting: PROSPER Consortium guidance.
Article in Drug safety, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Development of a core outcome set for myelodysplastic syndromes - a Delphi study from the EUMDS Registry Group.British journal of haematology · 2020Pooled it
- Patient-Reported Outcomes During and After Treatment for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer in the PROSPECT Trial (Alliance N1048).Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023Trial
- Electronic Patient Reporting of Adverse Events and Quality of Life: A Prospective Feasibility Study in General Oncology.JCO oncology practice · 2021Trial
- Safety of Postpartum Herbal Medicine in Primary Care Korean Medicine Clinics: Protocol for a Prospective, Multicenter, Registry-Based Observational Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Observational
- Post-marketing safety monitoring of RSV vaccines: A real-world study based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- An analysis of awareness and acceptability of the Medicines Side Effect Reporting Form for Consumer and the quality of data entered by consumers - An Indian perspective.Indian journal of pharmacology · 2025Article
- Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Versus Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Very Low-Lying Clinical T3 Rectal Cancer: The NAIR Phase 2/3 Randomized Clinical Trial.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025Article
- The evolution of patient-reported safety concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic within a series of study questionnaires: a multi-method analysis.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025Article
- Incorporating patient-reported outcome measures into routine paediatric pharmacovigilance: opportunities for safety monitoring with practical use scenarios from paediatric oncology.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Adverse Event Reporting in Cancer Clinical Trials: Incorporating Patient-Reported Methods. A Systematic Scoping Review.The patient · 2024Article
- How to select and understand guidelines for patient-reported outcomes: a scoping review of existing guidance.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Cohort event monitoring of safety of COVID-19 vaccines: the Italian experience of the "ilmiovaccinoCOVID19 collaborating group".Frontiers in drug safety and regulation · 2024Article
- Evaluating the content and face validity of Arabic-translated Patient Measures of Safety survey PMOS-30.PloS one · 2024Article
- Development and usability testing of an electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) solution for patients with inflammatory diseases in an Advanced Therapy Medicinal Product (ATMP) basket trial.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2023Article
- Feasibility of PROMIS using computerized adaptive testing during inpatient rehabilitation.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2023Article
- Exploring differences in symptomatic adverse events assessment between nurses and physicians in the clinical trial setting.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Factors Contributing to Best Practices for Patient Involvement in Pharmacovigilance in Europe: A Stakeholder Analysis.Drug safety · 2022Review
- Pediatric lymphoma patients in Malawi present with poor health-related quality of life at diagnosis and improve throughout treatment and follow-up across all Pediatric PROMIS-25 domains.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2021Article
- Personal Accounts of Young-Onset Colorectal Cancer Organized as Patient-Reported Data: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2021Article
- Generating Relevant Information from Patients in the Technology-Enhanced Era of Patient-Focused Drug Development: Opportunities and Challenges.The patient · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Patient-Reported Outcomes Safety Event Reporting (PROSPER) Consortium was convened to improve safety reporting by better incorporating the perspective of the patient. PROSPER comprises industry, regulatory authority, academic, private sector and patient representatives who are interested in the area of patient-reported outcomes of adverse events (PRO-AEs). It has developed guidance on PRO-AE data, including the benefits of wider use and approaches for data capture and analysis. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) encompass the full range of self-reporting, rather than only patient reports collected by clinicians using validated instruments. In recent years, PROs have become increasingly important across the spectrum of healthcare and life sciences. Patient-centred models of care are integrating shared decision making and PROs at the point of care; comparative effectiveness research seeks to include patients as participatory stakeholders; and industry is expanding its involvement with patients and patient groups as part of the drug development process and safety monitoring. Additionally, recent pharmacovigilance legislation from regulatory authorities in the EU and the USA calls for the inclusion of patient-reported information in benefit-risk assessment of pharmaceutical products. For patients, technological advancements have made it easier to be an active participant in one's healthcare. Simplified internet search capabilities, electronic and personal health records, digital mobile devices, and PRO-enabled patient online communities are just a few examples of tools that allow patients to gain increased knowledge about conditions, symptoms, treatment options and side effects. Despite these changes and increased attention on the perceived value of PROs, their full potential has yet to be realised in pharmacovigilance. Current safety reporting and risk assessment processes remain heavily dependent on healthcare professionals, though there are known limitations such as under-reporting and discordant perspectives between patient reports and clinician perceptions of adverse outcomes. PROSPER seeks to support the wider use of PRO-AEs. The scope of this guidance document, which was completed between July 2011 and March 2013, considered a host of domains related to PRO-AEs, including definitions and suitable taxonomies, the range of datasets that could be used, data collection mechanisms, and suitable analytical methodologies. PROSPER offers an innovative framework to differentiate patient populations. This framework considers populations that are prespecified (such as those in clinical trials, prospective observational studies and some registries) and non-prespecified populations (such as those in claims databases, PRO-enabled online patient networks, and social websites in general). While the main focus of this guidance is on post-approval PRO-AEs from both prespecified and non-prespecified population groups, PROSPER has also considered pre-approval, prespecified populations. The ultimate aim of this guidance is to ensure that the patient 'voice' and perspective feed appropriately into collection of safety data. The guidance also covers a minimum core dataset for use by industry or regulators to structure PRO-AEs (accessible in the online appendix) and how data, once collected, might be evaluated to better inform on the safe and effective use of medicinal products. Structured collection of such patient data can be considered both a means to an end (improving patient safety) as well as an end in itself (expressing the patient viewpoint). The members of the PROSPER Consortium therefore direct this PRO-AE guidance to multiple stakeholders in drug safety, including industry, regulators, prescribers and patients. The use of this document across the entirety of the drug development life cycle will help to better define the benefit-risk profile of new and existing medicines. Because of the clinical relevance of 'real-world' data, PROs have the potential to contribute important new knowledge about the benefits and risks of medicinal products, communicated through the voice of the patient.
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.