ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2018
Neurologic provider views on patient-reported outcomes including depression screening.
Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A simple guide to the use of Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, Chi-squared test, and Kruskal-Wallis test in biostatistics.BioData mining · 2025Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe sought to assess neurologic provider satisfaction with the systematic electronic collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for both disease-specific measures and depression screening (Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9]).
methodsA web-based survey was sent to 299 staff physicians and advanced practice providers on the staff email list of a large group neurologic practice, of whom 206 used the PROM system. The survey consisted of 11 questions with Likert response options regarding perceived usefulness of PROM collection; usefulness of PROM data for clinical care, quality, and research activities according to provider age group and type; and perceived usefulness between disease-specific information and the PHQ-9 depression screen.
resultsOf those who use the PROM system, 73.3% (151/206) responded. PROM collection was useful for patient care (strongly agree or agree 59.6%), research (strongly agree or agree 68.5%), and to a lesser extent, quality improvement (strongly agree or agree 48.6%). Providers aged 66-75 years believed PROM data were less useful for research (
conclusionsProviders favorably viewed systematic electronic collection of PROMs in neurologic patients. A mandated depression screening was perceived as favorably as center-selected disease-specific information and should be considered when implementing PROMs in neurologic practice.
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.