Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27815820›Full record

SynthesisQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2017

The impact of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice for pain: a systematic review.

Michelle M Holmes, George Lewith, David Newell, Jonathan Field, Felicity L Bishop

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Characterising patients undergoing surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis associated neurogenic claudication in the UK: what does the British Spinal Registry tell us?European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

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.

Michelle M HolmesSchool of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, SO17 1BJ, UK. mmh1e13@soton.ac.uk.
George LewithPrimary Medical Care, University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, SO16 5ST, UK.
David NewellAnglo-European College of Chiropractic, Bournemouth, Dorset, BH5 2DF, UK.
Jonathan FieldBack2Health, Petersfield, Hampshire, GU32 3EH, UK.
Felicity L BishopSchool of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, SO17 1BJ, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have increasingly been incorporated into clinical practice. Research suggests that PROMs could be viewed as active components of complex interventions and may affect the process and outcome of care. This systematic review examines PROMs in the context of treatment for non-malignant pain.

methodsAn electronic search on: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Cochrane Library and Web of Science identified relevant papers (February 2015). The inclusion criteria were: focused on implementing PROMs into clinical practice, adults, and primary data studies. Critical interpretive synthesis was used to synthesise qualitative and quantitative findings into a theoretical argument.

resultsThirteen eligible studies were identified. Synthesis suggested that PROMs may be included in the initial consultation to assess patients and for shared decision-making regarding patient care. During the course of treatment, PROMs can be used to track progress, evaluate treatment, and change the course of care; using PROMs may also influence the therapeutic relationship. Post-treatment, using PROMs might directly influence other outcomes such as pain and patient satisfaction. However, although studies have investigated these areas, evidence is weak and inconclusive.

conclusionDue to the poor quality, lack of generalisability and heterogeneity of these studies, it is not possible to provide a comprehensive understanding of how PROMs may impact clinical treatment of non-malignant pain. The literature suggests that PROMs enable pain assessment, decision-making, the therapeutic relationship, evaluation of treatment and may influence outcomes. Further research is needed to provide better evidence as to whether PROMs do indeed have any effects on these domains.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresSickness Impact ProfileAdultHumansPainClinical practicePainPatient-reported outcome measuresPROMs

Identifiers

PMID27815820
PMCPMC5288411

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.