Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33156510›Full record

ArticlePharmaceutical medicine2020

Patient Experience Information: Streamlining and Harmonizing the Collection of Patient Preference and Patient-Reported Outcomes Data.

Matthew Reaney, Ana Maria Rodriguez

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmaceutical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Matthew ReaneyPatient Centered Endpoints, IQVIA, 3 Forbury Place, 23 Forbury Road, Reading, RG1 2JH, UK. matthew.reaney@iqvia.com.ORCID 0000-0003-2918-722X
Ana Maria RodriguezPatient Centered Endpoints, IQVIA, Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) research is conducted to gather information on an individual's disease or treatment experiences. Patient preference (PP) research is conducted to gather an individual's evaluation of alternatives or choices among outcomes or other attributes. The fields of PRO and PP research have largely been kept separate, partly because the use and audience have been different; although both can influence health care choices. Recent initiatives on the generation of 'patient experience information' provide a regulatory framework for simultaneous consideration of PRO and PP data. This should act as an impetus for PRO and PP researchers to collaborate to generate scientifically robust information on patients' experiences, perspectives, needs, and priorities. This article discusses the similarities between PRO and PP research and proposes a streamlined and harmonized approach from which sponsors can provide regulators (and payers, clinicians, caregivers, and patients) with information derived using psychometrically robust and interpretable PRO and PP methodologies.

Indexed as

Patient PreferencePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresResearch DesignCaregiversClinical Decision-MakingHumansPatient ParticipationPhysician's RolePsychometricsStakeholder ParticipationTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.