Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26409600›Full record

GuidelineValue in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research2015

Clinical Outcome Assessments: Conceptual Foundation-Report of the ISPOR Clinical Outcomes Assessment - Emerging Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force.

Marc K Walton, John H Powers, Jeremy Hobart, Donald Patrick, Patrick Marquis, Spiros Vamvakas, Maria Isaac, Elizabeth Molsen, Stefan Cano, Laurie B Burke and 1 more

Abstract readPractice Guideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 143 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
143citing papers in PubMed, 10 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

143 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. A Systematic Review of Health-Related Quality-of-Life Measurement in Patients With Complicated Urinary Tract Infections.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Guideline
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Using a measurement type-independent metric to compare patterns of determinants between patient-reported versus performance-based physical function in hemodialysis patients.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Driving emerging technology to clinical impact.Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) · 2026
    Review
  20. Article

83 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Marc K WaltonJanssen Research and Development, Titusville, NJ, USA. Electronic address: mwalton9@its.jnj.com.
John H PowersLeidos Biomedical Research in support of the Division of Clinical Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Jeremy HobartPlymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Devon, UK.
Donald PatrickSeattle Quality of Life Group, Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Patrick MarquisModus Outcomes, Newton, MA, USA.
Spiros VamvakasEuropean Medicines Agency, London, UK.
Maria IsaacEuropean Medicines Agency, London, UK.
Elizabeth MolsenInternational Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, Lawrenceville, NJ, USA.
Stefan CanoModus Outcomes, Stotfold, UK.
Laurie B BurkeLORA Group, LLC, Royal Oak, MD, USA; Department of Health Services Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, USA.
International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Task Force for Clinical Outcomes Assessment

Funding

CCR NIH HHS HHSN261200800001CIntramural NIH HHS Z99 AI999999NCI NIH HHS HHSN261200800001E
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An outcome assessment, the patient assessment used in an endpoint, is the measuring instrument that provides a rating or score (categorical or continuous) that is intended to represent some aspect of the patient's health status. Outcome assessments are used to define efficacy endpoints when developing a therapy for a disease or condition. Most efficacy endpoints are based on specified clinical assessments of patients. When clinical assessments are used as clinical trial outcomes, they are called clinical outcome assessments (COAs). COAs include any assessment that may be influenced by human choices, judgment, or motivation. COAs must be well-defined and possess adequate measurement properties to demonstrate (directly or indirectly) the benefits of a treatment. In contrast, a biomarker assessment is one that is subject to little, if any, patient motivational or rater judgmental influence. This is the first of two reports by the ISPOR Clinical Outcomes Assessment - Emerging Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force. This report provides foundational definitions important for an understanding of COA measurement principles. The foundation provided in this report includes what it means to demonstrate a beneficial effect, how assessments of patients relate to the objective of showing a treatment's benefit, and how these assessments are used in clinical trial endpoints. In addition, this report describes intrinsic attributes of patient assessments and clinical trial factors that can affect the properties of the measurements. These factors should be considered when developing or refining assessments. These considerations will aid investigators designing trials in their choice of using an existing assessment or developing a new outcome assessment. Although the focus of this report is on the development of a new COA to define endpoints in a clinical trial, these principles may be applied more generally. A critical element in appraising or developing a COA is to describe the treatment's intended benefit as an effect on a clearly identified aspect of how a patient feels or functions. This aspect must have importance to the patient and be part of the patient's typical life. This meaningful health aspect can be measured directly or measured indirectly when it is impractical to evaluate it directly or when it is difficult to measure. For indirect measurement, a concept of interest (COI) can be identified. The COI must be related to how a patient feels or functions. Procedures are then developed to measure the COI. The relationship of these measurements with how a patient feels or functions in the intended setting and manner of use of the COA (the context of use) could then be defined. A COA has identifiable attributes or characteristics that affect the measurement properties of the COA when used in endpoints. One of these features is whether judgment can influence the measurement, and if so, whose judgment. This attribute defines four categories of COAs: patient reported outcomes, clinician reported outcomes, observer reported outcomes, and performance outcomes. A full description as well as explanation of other important COA features is included in this report. The information in this report should aid in the development, refinement, and standardization of COAs, and, ultimately, improve their measurement properties.

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingClinical Trials as TopicConsensusEmotionsEndpoint DeterminationHealth Services ResearchHealth StatusHumansProcess Assessment, Health CareRecovery of FunctionTerminology as TopicTreatment Outcomeclinical outcome assessmentconcept of interestcontext of usetreatment benefit

Identifiers

PMID26409600
PMCPMC4610138

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.