Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25962972›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical epidemiology2015

Pragmatic characteristics of patient-reported outcome measures are important for use in clinical practice.

Kurt Kroenke, Patrick O Monahan, Jacob Kean

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Review
  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

3 authors.

Kurt KroenkeVA HSR&D Center for Health Information and Communication, Roudebush VA Medical Center, 1481 W. 10th St., Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA; Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, 545 Barnhill Drive, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA; Regenstrief Institute, Inc., 1050 Wishard Blvd, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA. Electronic address: kkroenke@regenstrief.org.
Patrick O MonahanDepartment of Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Medicine and School of Public Health, 410 W. 10th St., Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA.
Jacob KeanVA HSR&D Center for Health Information and Communication, Roudebush VA Medical Center, 1481 W. 10th St., Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA; Regenstrief Institute, Inc., 1050 Wishard Blvd, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Indiana University School of Medicine, Goodman Hall, 355 W. 16th St., Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA.

Funding

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Project Management: Improving Submissions and Study Conduct in the Human Subjects Research Prior Approval ProcessUL1TR002529 · NCATS · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI MOE, SHARON M, WIEHE, SARAH ELIZABETH · 2018 to 2022
$27.2M
Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences InstituteUL1TR001108 · NCATS · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI DENNE, SCOTT C., SHEKHAR, ANANTHA · 2013 to 2017
$23.3M
Develop and Validate Tool to Monitor Patient Centered Outcomes Through CaregiversR01AG043465 · NIA · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI MONAHAN, PATRICK O. · 2013 to 2015
$1.5M
Measurement-Based Telehealth Care of Mild Traumatic Brain InjuryIK2RX000879 · VA · VA SALT LAKE CITY HEALTHCARE SYSTEM · PI KEAN, JACOB T. · 2012 to 2017
–
HSRD VA IIR 07-119NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001108NIA NIH HHS R01 AG043465RRD VA IK2 RX000879
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesMeasures for assessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) that may have initially been developed for research are increasingly being recommended for use in clinical practice as well. Although psychometric rigor is essential, this article focuses on pragmatic characteristics of PROs that may enhance uptake into clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN AND

settingThree sources were drawn on in identifying pragmatic criteria for PROs: (1) selected literature review including recommendations by other expert groups; (2) key features of several model public domain PROs; and (3) the authors' experience in developing practical PROs.

resultsEight characteristics of a practical PRO include: (1) actionability (i.e., scores guide diagnostic or therapeutic actions/decision making); (2) appropriateness for the relevant clinical setting; (3) universality (i.e., for screening, severity assessment, and monitoring across multiple conditions); (4) self-administration; (5) item features (number of items and bundling issues); (6) response options (option number and dimensions, uniform vs. varying options, time frame, intervals between options); (7) scoring (simplicity and interpretability); and (8) accessibility (nonproprietary, downloadable, available in different languages and for vulnerable groups, and incorporated into electronic health records).

conclusionBalancing psychometric and pragmatic factors in the development of PROs is important for accelerating the incorporation of PROs into clinical practice.

Indexed as

Patient Outcome AssessmentHumansPsychometricsQuality of LifeResearch DesignSurveys and QuestionnairesMeasuresPatient-reported outcomesPsychometricsQuality of lifeScalesUtility

Identifiers

PMID25962972
PMCPMC4540688

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.