Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30284183›Full record

SynthesisQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2019

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

S Ishaque, J Karnon, G Chen, R Nair, A B Salter

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 88 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 8 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.

NCT05040646 completednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Study Protocol - The Development of a Novel Patient Reported Outcomes Measure Committed to the Watch-and-wait Program for Rectal Cancer: An International Delphi Study Protocol

TypeobservationalSponsorMaastricht University Medical CenterRan2021 to 2023Enrolled80ConditionsRectal CancerArmsDelphi exercise
NCT06164457 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Implementing Individualized Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Routine Care of Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: a Pilot Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of CalgaryRan2024 to 2027Enrolled200ConditionsCoronary Artery Disease, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Physician-Patient RelationsArmsePROM Survey
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

88 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Effectiveness of ePRO-based symptom management for cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

28 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

S IshaqueSchool of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. sana.ishaque@adelaide.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8184-3485
J KarnonSchool of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
G ChenCentre for Health Economics, Monash Business School, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
R NairSchool of Dentistry, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
A B SalterSchool of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) could play an important role in identifying patients' needs and goals in clinical encounters, improving communication and decision-making with clinicians, while making care more patient-centred. Comprehensive evidence that PROMS are an effective intervention is lacking in single randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

methodsA systematic search was performed using controlled vocabulary related to the terms: clinical care setting and patient-reported outcome. English language studies were included if they were a RCT with a PROM as an intervention in a patient population. Included studies were analysed and their methodologic quality was appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016034182).

resultsOf 4302 articles initially identified, 115 underwent full-text review resulting in 22 studies reporting on 25 comparisons. The majority of included studies were conducted in USA (11), among cancer patients (11), with adult participants only (20). Statistically significant and robust improvements were reported in the pre-specified outcomes of the process of care (2) and health care (3). Additionally, five, eight and three statistically significant but possibly non-robust findings were reported in the process of care, health and patient satisfaction outcomes, respectively.

conclusionsOverall, studies that compared PROM to standard care either reported a positive effect or were not powered to find pre-specified differences. There is justification for the use of a PROM as part of standard care, but further adequately powered studies on their use in different contexts are necessary for a more comprehensive evidence base.

Indexed as

Health StatusPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultDecision MakingFemaleHumansMaleNeoplasmsPatient SatisfactionQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicClinical careHealth-related quality of lifeHRQLHRQoLPatient outcomesPatient-reported outcome measuresPatient-reported outcomesPROMsQOLQuality of life

Identifiers

PMID30284183

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.