Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25452841›Full record

ReviewUnited European gastroenterology journal2014

Assessing patient reported outcome measures: A practical guide for gastroenterologists.

Laith Alrubaiy, Hayley A Hutchings, John G Williams

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in United European gastroenterology journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03435991 ('The Experience Sampling Method), which is not on this map. Cited by 22 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 5 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.

NCT03435991 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

'The Experience Sampling Method (ESM): a Real-time Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Symptom Assessment in Patients With Overactive Bladder Syndrome.'

TypeobservationalSponsorMaastricht University Medical CenterRan2018 to 2021Enrolled132ConditionsOveractive Bladder, Overactive Bladder SyndromeArmsValidation Experience Sampling Method 'Uromate'
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Selecting the optimal MIC for five patient-reported outcome measures in patients with upper extremity injuries, using a systematic search and step-by-step decision tree.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): A review of generic and condition-specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

3 authors.

Laith AlrubaiyPatient and Population Health and Informatics Research, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Hayley A HutchingsPatient and Population Health and Informatics Research, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
John G WilliamsPatient and Population Health and Informatics Research, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gastrointestinal illnesses cause physical, emotional and social impact on patients. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in clinical decision-making, clinical research and approval of new therapies. In the last decade, there has been a rapid increase in the number of PROMs in gastroenterology and, therefore, the choice between which of these PROMs to use can be difficult. Not all PROM instruments currently used in research and clinical practice in gastroenterology have gone through a rigorous development methodology. New drugs and therapies will not have access to the market if the PROMs used in their clinical trials are not validated according to the guidelines of the international agencies. Therefore, it is important to know the required properties of PROMs when choosing or evaluating a drug or a clinical intervention. This paper reviews the current literature on how to assess the validity and reliability of PROMs. It summarises the required properties into a practical guide for gastroenterologists to use in assessing an instrument for use in clinical practice or research.

Indexed as

Patient reported outcome measuresquality of life

Identifiers

PMID25452841
PMCPMC4245310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.