Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28433678›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2017

Montreal Accord on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) use series - Paper 4: patient-reported outcomes can inform clinical decision making in chronic care.

Clifton O Bingham, Vanessa K Noonan, Claudine Auger, Debbie E Feldman, Sara Ahmed, Susan J Bartlett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Unsupervised item response theory models for assessing sample heterogeneity in patient-reported outcomes measures.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Signficant Femoral Version Abnormalities and Patient-Reported Quality of Life.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2023
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Clifton O BinghamJohns Hopkins Division of Rheumatology, 5200 Eastern Avenue, Mason F. Lord Bldg, Suite 4100, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA. Electronic address: clifton.bingham@jhmi.edu.
Vanessa K NoonanRick Hansen Institute, Blusson Spinal Cord Centre, 818 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V5Z 1M9.
Claudine AugerCenter for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation of Greater Montreal, CRLB, 2275 Laurier East, Montréal, Québec, Canada H2H 2N8.
Debbie E FeldmanDirection de la Santé Publique, Montréal, 1301 Sherbrooke East, Montreal, Québec, Canada H2L 1M3.
Sara AhmedDepartment of Medicine, McGill University/McGill University Health Center (RVH), 687 Pine Avenue West, Ross Pavilion R4.29, Montreal, Québec, Canada H3A 1A1; School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, McGill University, 3654 Prom Sir-William-Osler, Montreal, Québec, Canada H3G 1Y5; Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire en réadaptation (CRIR), 2275 Laurier Ave E, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H2H 2N8.
Susan J BartlettJohns Hopkins Division of Rheumatology, 5200 Eastern Avenue, Mason F. Lord Bldg, Suite 4100, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA; Department of Medicine, McGill University/McGill University Health Center (RVH), 687 Pine Avenue West, Ross Pavilion R4.29, Montreal, Québec, Canada H3A 1A1.

Funding

Phenotype-Specific Immune Responses in the Systemic VasculitidesP30AR053503 · NIAMS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI ROSEN, ANTONY · 2006 to 2015
$6.4M
NIAMS NIH HHS P30 AR053503
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProviding patient-centered health care requires that patient needs, preferences, and valued outcomes are more fully integrated into all decisions. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures provide unique information from the patient perspective on overall health, symptoms, burden, and treatment response.

objectiveWe sought to describe applications of PROs in clinical settings and considerations for implementation from the perspectives of PRO researchers, clinicians, administrators, policy makers, and patients attending a multidisciplinary meeting. DISCUSSION: Clinical applications of PROs include individual level use for medical decision making and aggregate use for comparative effectiveness research, program evaluation, quality improvement, and performance assessments. Considerations of feasibility on workflow impact and patient burden, display of results, and administration frequency are important. PROs with strong psychometric properties, actionable thresholds, and interpretable results should be selected. We provide current exemplars of PRO use in various clinical applications, initial lessons learned, and highlight conceptual, logistical, and consequential considerations of PRO data collection. A research agenda is proposed to address critical knowledge gaps. In conclusion, PROs can be used in clinical settings to support patient-centered care. This requires an assessment of feasibility in the intended setting of use, measurement considerations, and process measures to optimize integration and use.

Indexed as

Long-Term CarePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresCanadaClinical Decision-MakingCongresses as TopicHumansClinical practicePatient carePatient-centered outcomesPatient-reported outcomes

Identifiers

PMID28433678
PMCPMC6529209

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.