ArticlePharmaceutical medicine2020
Patient Experience Information: Streamlining and Harmonizing the Collection of Patient Preference and Patient-Reported Outcomes Data.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
33156510What 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.