ReviewJournal of patient-reported outcomes2017
Literature review to assemble the evidence for response scales used in patient-reported outcome measures.
Review in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 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
30 citing papers in PubMed.
- Menthol chewing gum on preoperative thirst management: randomized clinical trial.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2019Trial
- Quality of patient-reported outcome reporting and related trial characteristics in randomized controlled trials of cancer pain: A systematic review based on the CONSORT-PRO extension.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Review
- Understanding Gaps in Pharmacist-Patient Role Perceptions: Implications for Collaborative Care.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Patient-reported effects of transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation on spasticity in patients with spinal cord injury.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2026Article
- Psychometric validation of the Worst Itch Numerical Rating Scale (WI-NRS) and other patient-reported outcome measures for assessing severity and impact of pruritus in patients with primary biliary cholangitis.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Article
- Micromassage Compression Leggings Associated with Physical Exercise: Pilot Study and Example of Evaluation of the Clinical and Instrumental Effectiveness of Conservative Treatment in Lipedema.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- What patient-reported outcome measures may be suitable for research involving older adults with frailty? A scoping review.European geriatric medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Content development for a new item-bank for measuring multifocal contact lens performance.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Understanding the impact of radiotherapy related insufficiency fractures and exploring satisfaction with two existing patient reported outcome measures: A qualitative interview study.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2023Article
- Decisional conflict and its determinants among patients with cancer undergoing immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy or targeted therapy: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Development of the Emoji Faces Pain Scale and Its Validation on Mobile Devices in Adult Surgery Patients: Longitudinal Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Observational
- Comparison of two rating scales with the orofacial esthetic scale and practical recommendations for its application.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2022Article
- Measurement Comparability of Electronic and Paper Administration of Visual Analogue Scales: A Review of Published Studies.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2022Review
- Single Center Oncoplastic Experience and Patient Satisfaction Reported via Patient Reported Outcomes.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022Article
- Incorporating patient experience into drug development for ulcerative colitis: development of the Urgency Numeric Rating Scale, a patient-reported outcome measure to assess bowel urgency in adults.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2022Article
- Prevalence and Prognostic Significance of Frailty in Asian Patients With Heart Failure: Insights From ASIAN-HF.JACC. Asia · 2021Article
- The impact of location and patency of the arteriovenous fistula on quality of life of kidney transplant recipients.Renal failure · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the development of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments, little documentation is provided on the justification of response scale selection. The selection of response scales is often based on the developers' preferences or therapeutic area conventions. The purpose of this literature review was to assemble evidence on the selection of response scale types, in PRO instruments. The literature search was conducted in EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases. Secondary search was conducted on supplementary sources including reference lists of key articles, websites for major PRO-related working groups and consortia, and conference abstracts. Evidence on the selection of verbal rating scale (VRS), numeric rating scale (NRS), and visual analogue scale (VAS) was collated based on pre-determined categories pertinent to the development of PRO instruments: reliability, validity, and responsiveness of PRO instruments, select therapeutic areas, and optimal number of response scale options.
resultsA total of 6713 abstracts were reviewed; 186 full-text references included. There was a lack of consensus in the literature on the justification for response scale type based on the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of a PRO instrument. The type of response scale varied within the following therapeutic areas: asthma, cognition, depression, fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis, and oncology. The optimal number of response options depends on the construct, but quantitative evidence suggests that a 5-point or 6-point VRS was more informative and discriminative than fewer response options.
conclusionsThe VRS, NRS, and VAS are acceptable response scale types in the development of PRO instruments. The empirical evidence on selection of response scales was inconsistent and, therefore, more empirical evidence needs to be generated. In the development of PRO instruments, it is important to consider the measurement properties and therapeutic area and provide justification for the selection of response scale type.
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.