Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27002223›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials2016

Systematic collection of patient reported outcome research data: A checklist for clinical research professionals.

Leslie Wehrlen, Mike Krumlauf, Elizabeth Ness, Damiana Maloof, Margaret Bevans

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Knowledge translation resources to support the use of quality of life assessment tools for the care of older adults living at home and their family caregivers.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Evolution of Patient-Reported Outcomes and Their Role in Multiple Sclerosis Clinical Trials.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2017
    Review
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

5 authors.

Leslie WehrlenNursing Department, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, 10 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. Electronic address: lwehrlen@nih.gov.
Mike KrumlaufNursing Department, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, 10 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. Electronic address: krumlaum@cc.nih.gov.
Elizabeth NessCenter for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA. Electronic address: nesse@mail.nih.gov.
Damiana MaloofNewton-Wellesley Hospital, Newton, MA 02462, USA. Electronic address: dmaloof@partners.org.
Margaret BevansNursing Department, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, 10 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. Electronic address: mbevans@cc.nih.gov.

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CL999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding the human experience is no longer an outcome explored strictly by social and behavioral researchers. Increasingly, biomedical researchers are also including patient reported outcomes (PROs) in their clinical research studies not only due to calls for increased patient engagement in research but also healthcare. Collecting PROs in clinical research studies offers a lens into the patient's unique perspective providing important information to industry sponsors and the FDA. Approximately 30% of trials include PROs as primary or secondary endpoints and a quarter of FDA new drug, device and biologic applications include PRO data to support labeling claims. In this paper PRO, represents any information obtained directly from the patient or their proxy, without interpretation by another individual to ascertain their health, evaluate symptoms or conditions and extends the reference of PRO, as defined by the FDA, to include other sources such as patient diaries. Consumers and clinicians consistently report that PRO data are valued, and can aide when deciding between treatment options; therefore an integral part of clinical research. However, little guidance exists for clinical research professionals (CRPs) responsible for collecting PRO data on the best practices to ensure quality data collection so that an accurate assessment of the patient's view is collected. Therefore the purpose of this work was to develop and validate a checklist to guide quality collection of PRO data. The checklist synthesizes best practices from published literature and expert opinions addressing practical and methodological challenges CRPs often encounter when collecting PRO data in research settings.

Indexed as

ChecklistPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresResearch PersonnelBiomedical ResearchClinical Trials as TopicData CollectionHumansSelf ReportClinical trialsGuidancePatient diaryPatient reported outcomeQuestionnaireSelf-reported data

Identifiers

PMID27002223
PMCPMC4885791

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.