Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33949755›Full record

ReviewHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2021

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): A review of generic and condition-specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues.

Kate Churruca, Chiara Pomare, Louise A Ellis, Janet C Long, Suzanna B Henderson, Lisa E D Murphy, Christopher J Leahy, Jeffrey Braithwaite

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 399 papers, 24 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
399citing papers in PubMed, 24 pooled it
36.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

399 citing papers in PubMed, 24 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 656 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Evaluating the Use of Anxiety Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Dementia Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. How to Assess Scar Quality in Pediatric Burn Patients: A Systematic Review on the Type and Content of Outcome Measurement Instruments.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2025
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test for Children (CARATkids): A systematic review and meta-analysis of its measurement properties.Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology · 2025
    Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. A COSMIN systematic review of generic patient-reported outcome measures in Switzerland.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Pooled it

339 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kate ChurrucaCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9923-3116
Chiara PomareCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9118-7207
Louise A EllisCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6902-4578
Janet C LongCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0553-682X
Suzanna B HendersonThe Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Lisa E D MurphyThe Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Christopher J LeahyThe Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Jeffrey BraithwaiteCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0296-4957
Macquarie University · AUAustralian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires that collect health outcomes directly from the people who experience them. This review critically synthesizes information on generic and selected condition-specific PROMs to describe trends and contemporary issues regarding their development, validation and application.

methodsWe reviewed academic and grey literature on validated PROMs by searching databases, prominent websites, Google Scholar and Google Search. The identification of condition-specific PROMs was limited to common conditions and those with a high burden of disease (eg cancers, cardiovascular disorders). Trends and contemporary issues in the development, validation and application of PROMs were critically evaluated.

resultsThe search yielded 315 generic and condition-specific PROMs. The largest numbers of measures were identified for generic PROMs, musculoskeletal conditions and cancers. The earliest published PROMs were in mental health-related conditions. The number of PROMs grew substantially between 1980s and 2000s but slowed more recently. The number of publications discussing PROMs continues to increase. Issues identified include the use of computer-adaptive testing and increasing concerns about the appropriateness of using PROMs developed and validated for specific purposes (eg research) for other reasons (eg clinical decision making).

conclusionsThe term PROM is a relatively new designation for a range of measures that have existed since at least the 1960s. Although literature on PROMs continues to expand, challenges remain in selecting reliable and valid tools that are fit-for-purpose from the many existing instruments. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Consumers were not directly involved in this review; however, its outcome will be used in programmes that engage and partner with consumers.

Indexed as

Musculoskeletal DiseasesPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresClinical Decision-MakingHumansQuality of LifeSurveys and Questionnairespatient-reported outcome measurepatient safetyPROMreview

Identifiers

PMID33949755
PMCPMC8369118
OpenAlexW3157337874

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.