Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30464666›Full record

ReviewPatient related outcome measures2018

The importance of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials and strategies for future optimization.

Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber, Madeleine T King, Melanie J Calvert, Martin R Stockler, Michael Friedlander

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Patient related outcome measures, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 342 papers, 21 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
342citing papers in PubMed, 21 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

342 citing papers in PubMed, 21 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Equity, evidence and indigenous knowledges in PROMs in Australian injury research: a systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. 'What' and 'How' to Measure in Allergy and Clinical Immunology: A Systematic Review of Core Outcome Sets and Outcome Harmonisation Processes.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2026
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Strategies to promote the completion of patient-reported outcome measures by culturally and linguistically diverse and Indigenous Peoples in clinical care settings: A systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Montelukast in paediatric asthma and allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2023
    Pooled it

282 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.

Rebecca Mercieca-BebberNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia, rebecca.mercieca@sydney.edu.au; michael.friedlander@health.nsw.gov.au.
Madeleine T KingCentral Clinical School, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Melanie J CalvertCentre for Patient-Reported Outcomes Research and NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
Martin R StocklerNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia, rebecca.mercieca@sydney.edu.au; michael.friedlander@health.nsw.gov.au.
Michael FriedlanderNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia, rebecca.mercieca@sydney.edu.au; michael.friedlander@health.nsw.gov.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can be included in clinical trials as primary or secondary endpoints and are increasingly recognized by regulators, clinicians, and patients as valuable tools to collect patient-centered data. PROs provide unique information on the impact of a medical condition and its treatment from the patient's perspective; therefore, PROs can be included in clinical trials to ensure the impact of a trial intervention is comprehensively assessed. This review first discusses examples of how PRO endpoints have added value to clinical trial interpretation. Second, it describes the problems with current practices in designing, implementing, and reporting PRO studies, and how these problems may be addressed by complying with guidance for protocol development, selecting appropriate PRO measures to match clinically motivated PRO hypotheses, minimizing the rates of avoidable missing PRO data, analyzing and interpreting PRO data, and transparently reporting PRO findings.

Indexed as

clinical trials as topicpatient-reported outcomesquality of liferesearch practicestrial conduct

Identifiers

PMID30464666
PMCPMC6219423

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.