Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28212963›Full record

ArticleValue in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research2017

Clinician-Reported Outcome Assessments of Treatment Benefit: Report of the ISPOR Clinical Outcome Assessment Emerging Good Practices Task Force.

John H Powers, Donald L Patrick, Marc K Walton, Patrick Marquis, Stefan Cano, Jeremy Hobart, Maria Isaac, Spiros Vamvakas, Ashley Slagle, Elizabeth Molsen and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 95 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
95citing papers in PubMed, 15 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

95 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Evaluating the Use of Anxiety Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Dementia Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. The use of proxies and proxy-reported measures: a report of the international society for quality of life research (ISOQOL) proxy task force.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Proxy- and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Cleft Lip and/or Palate Under 8 Years of Age: A Scoping Review.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2026
    Article
  20. Article

35 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.

John H PowersGeorge Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA. Electronic address: jpowers3@aol.com.
Donald L PatrickDepartment of Health Services and Seattle Quality of Life Group, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Marc K WaltonJanssen Research & Development, Ashton, MD, USA.
Patrick MarquisModus Outcomes, Newtown, MA, USA.
Stefan CanoModus Outcomes, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire, UK.
Jeremy HobartPeninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth, UK.
Maria IsaacInstitute of Medicine of the National Academy of Science, European Medicines Agency, London, UK.
Spiros VamvakasEuropean Medicines Agency, London, UK.
Ashley SlagleAspen Consulting Services, LLC, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Elizabeth MolsenISPOR, Lawrenceville, NJ, USA.
Laurie B BurkeLora Group, LLC, Royal Oak, MD, USA; University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 AI999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO) assessment is a type of clinical outcome assessment (COA). ClinRO assessments, like all COAs (patient-reported, observer-reported, or performance outcome assessments), are used to 1) measure patients' health status and 2) define end points that can be interpreted as treatment benefits of medical interventions on how patients feel, function, or survive in clinical trials. Like other COAs, ClinRO assessments can be influenced by human choices, judgment, or motivation. A ClinRO assessment is conducted and reported by a trained health care professional and requires specialized professional training to evaluate the patient's health status. This is the second of two reports by the ISPOR Clinical Outcomes Assessment-Emerging Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force. The first report provided an overview of COAs including definitions important for an understanding of COA measurement practices. This report focuses specifically on issues related to ClinRO assessments. In this report, we define three types of ClinRO assessments (readings, ratings, and clinician global assessments) and describe emerging good measurement practices in their development and evaluation. The good measurement practices include 1) defining the context of use; 2) identifying the concept of interest measured; 3) defining the intended treatment benefit on how patients feel, function, or survive reflected by the ClinRO assessment and evaluating the relationship between that intended treatment benefit and the concept of interest; 4) documenting content validity; 5) evaluating other measurement properties once content validity is established (including intra- and inter-rater reliability); 6) defining study objectives and end point(s) objectives, and defining study end points and placing study end points within the hierarchy of end points; 7) establishing interpretability in trial results; and 8) evaluating operational considerations for the implementation of ClinRO assessments used as end points in clinical trials. Applying good measurement practices to ClinRO assessment development and evaluation will lead to more efficient and accurate measurement of treatment effects. This is important beyond regulatory approval in that it provides evidence for the uptake of new interventions into clinical practice and provides justification to payers for reimbursement on the basis of the clearly demonstrated added value of the new intervention.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelAdvisory CommitteesDocumentationHealth StatusHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareReproducibility of ResultsResearch Designclinical trialsclinician-reported outcomesend pointsoutcome assessments

Identifiers

PMID28212963
PMCPMC5379997

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.