SynthesisBMJ open2018
Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure-based algorithm for clinical decision support in epilepsy outpatient follow-up: a test-retest reliability study.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- A generic and adaptable model of developing, implementing, and maintaining patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice - the AmbuFlex model.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
- Determinants of Dropping Out of Remote Patient-Reported Outcome-Based Follow-Up Among Patients With Epilepsy: Prospective Cohort Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Usage and impact of patient-reported outcomes in epilepsy.Brain and behavior · 2023Article
- Patient-reported outcome measures as determinants for the utilization of health care among outpatients with epilepsy: a prognostic cohort study.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2023Article
- Development and validation of a rapid psychosocial well-being screening tool in patients with metastatic breast cancer.International journal of nursing sciences · 2022Article
- Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) in Acute Symptomatic Seizure (ASyS) Versus Patients With Established Epilepsy.The Neurohospitalist · 2020Article
- Sociodemographic, personal, and disease-related determinants of referral to patient-reported outcome-based follow-up of remote outpatients: a prospective cohort study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020Article
- Fifteen Years' Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures at the Group and Patient Levels: Trend Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- Patient-initiated versus fixed-interval patient-reported outcome-based follow-up in outpatients with epilepsy: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2019Article
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
objectivesPatient-reported outcome (PRO) measures have been used in epilepsy outpatient clinics in Denmark since 2011. The patients' self-reported PRO data are used by clinicians as a decision aid to support whether a patient needs contact with the outpatient clinic or not based on a PRO algorithm. Validity and reliability are fundamental to any PRO measurement used at the individual level in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the test-retest reliability of the PRO algorithm used in epilepsy outpatient clinics and to analyse whether the method of administration (web and paper) would influence the result. DESIGN AND
settingTest-retest reliability study conducted in three epilepsy outpatient clinics in Central Denmark Region, Denmark.
participantsA total of 554 epilepsy outpatients aged 15 years or more were included from August 2016 to April 2017. The participants completed questionnaires at two time points and were randomly divided into four test-retest groups: web-web, paper-paper, web-paper and paper-web. In total, 166 patients completed web-web, 112 paper-paper, 239 web-paper and 37 paper-web.
resultsWeighted kappa with squared weight was 0.67 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.74) for the pooled PRO algorithm, and perfect agreement was observed in 82% (95% CI 78% to 85%) of the cases. There was a tendency towards higher test-retest reliability and agreement estimates within same method of administration (web-web or paper-paper) compared with a mixture of methods (web-paper and paper-web).
conclusionsThe PRO algorithm used for clinical decision support in epilepsy outpatient clinics showed moderate to substantial test-retest reliability. Different methods of administration produced similar results, but an influence of change in administration method cannot be ruled out.
Indexed as
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.