Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24550683›Full record

ReviewPatient related outcome measures2014

Harmonizing and consolidating the measurement of patient-reported information at health care institutions: a position statement of the Mayo Clinic.

David T Eton, Timothy J Beebe, Philip T Hagen, Michele Y Halyard, Victor M Montori, James M Naessens, Jeff A Sloan, Carrie A Thompson, Douglas L Wood

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Patient related outcome measures, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

9 authors.

David T EtonDivision of Heath Care Policy and Research, Department of Health Sciences Research, Rochester, MN, USA ; Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Rochester, MN, USA.
Timothy J BeebeDivision of Heath Care Policy and Research, Department of Health Sciences Research, Rochester, MN, USA ; Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Rochester, MN, USA.
Philip T HagenDepartment of Preventive, Occupational, and Aerospace Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Michele Y HalyardDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA.
Victor M MontoriDivision of Heath Care Policy and Research, Department of Health Sciences Research, Rochester, MN, USA ; Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Rochester, MN, USA.
James M NaessensDivision of Heath Care Policy and Research, Department of Health Sciences Research, Rochester, MN, USA ; Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Rochester, MN, USA.
Jeff A SloanDivision of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research, Rochester, MN, USA.
Carrie A ThompsonDivision of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA.
Douglas L WoodDivision of Heath Care Policy and Research, Department of Health Sciences Research, Rochester, MN, USA ; Center for Innovation, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.

Funding

Women's Cancer ProgramP30CA015083 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI Felicity Enders · 1985 to 2026
$151.3M
Assessing PROMIS and other simple patient-reported measures for cancer researchR01CA154537 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI SLOAN, JEFF A. · 2011 to 2016
$3.2M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA015083NCI NIH HHS R01 CA154537
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) capture how patients perceive their health and their health care; their use in clinical research is longstanding. Today, however, PROs increasingly are being used to inform the care of individual patients, and document the performance of health care entities. We recently wrote and internally distributed an institutional position statement titled "Harmonizing and Consolidating the Measurement of Patient-Reported Outcomes at Mayo Clinic: A Position Statement for the Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery". The statement is meant to educate clinicians, clinical teams, and institutional administrators about the merits of using PROs in a systematic manner for clinical care and quality measurement throughout the institution. The present article summarizes the most important messages from the statement, describing PROs and their use, identifying practical considerations for implementing them in routine practice, elucidating potential barriers to their use, and formulating strategies to overcome these barriers. The lessons learned from our experience - including pitfalls, challenges, and successes - may inform other health care institutions that are interested in systematically using PROs in health care delivery science and practice.

Indexed as

health care qualitypatient-centeredpatient-reported outcomesquality of lifequestionnaire

Identifiers

PMID24550683
PMCPMC3926456

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.