ReviewSkeletal radiology2021
Imaging-based patient-reported outcomes (PROs) database: How we do it.
Review in Skeletal radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving the Understanding and Managing of the Quality of Life of Patients With Lung Cancer With Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide an essential understanding of the impact a condition or treatment has on a patient, while complementing other, more traditional outcomes information like survival and time to symptom resolution. PROs have become increasingly important in medicine with the push toward patient-centered care. The creation of a PROs database within an institution or practice provides a way to collect, understand, and use this kind of patient feedback to inform quality improvement and develop the evidence base for medical decision-making and on a larger scale could potentially help determine national standards of care and treatment guidelines. This paper provides a first-hand account of our experience setting up an imaging-based PROs database at our institution and is organized into steps the reader can follow for creating a PROs database of their own. Given the limited use of PROs within both diagnostic and interventional radiology, we hope our paper stimulates a new interest among radiologists who may have never considered outcomes work in the past.
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.