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.
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.
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
143 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Measurement of haemolytic anaemia in a novel treatment response measure for SLE clinical trials.Lupus science & medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Outcome Measures in Alveolar Ridge Augmentation in the Edentulous Maxilla: A Systematic Review and COSMIN Analysis.Clinical oral implants research · 2026Pooled it
- 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 · 2025Pooled it
- Identifying Concepts of Physical Activity Which Are Clinically Meaningful to Patients and Care Providers: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Research.Clinical and translational science · 2025Pooled it
- Systematic literature review of the humanistic and economic burden of focal epilepsy and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in adults.Epilepsia open · 2024Pooled it
- 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 · 2024Guideline
- Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Maternal Postpartum Depression Using the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments Guideline: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Domains and Methods Used to Assess Home Telemonitoring Scalability: Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The patient experience of CHAPLE disease: results from interviews conducted as part of a clinical trial for an ultra-rare condition.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Trial
- 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 · 2024Trial
- The impact of metformin use on the outcomes of locally advanced breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy: an open-labelled randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Patient-reported outcomes and experience measures in the Community Pharmacy setting: Theoretical and practical framework regarding the PROMs and PREMs.Farmaceuticos comunitarios · 2026Review
- Beyond performance: the role of illness perception and internal comparison standards in patient-reported physical function assessments.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
- New technologies in oral reconstructive medicine: Consensus report of the AAP/OF/SEPA Workshop.Journal of periodontology · 2026Article
- Driving emerging technology to clinical impact.Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) · 2026Review
- Constructing an Evidence-Based Validity Rationale for a Multi-component Endpoint in Heterogeneous Populations.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Article
83 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
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
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.