ArticleJournal of patient experience2021
Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements (PROMs) After Discharge From the Emergency Department: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Journal of patient experience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ethical integration of patient-reported outcomes and digital biomarkers in AI healthcare models: an expert consensus framework.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Barriers and Best Practices for the Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Emergency Medicine.Annals of emergency medicine · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of a patient-reported outcome (PRO) is to elicit the perspectives of patients and translate them into a reliable measurement questionnaire.
objectivesThe objective of this cross-sectional study was to detect a set of PROs and PRO measurements (PROMs) about patients with isolated trauma of the limbs receiving emergency department (ED) care.
methodsA survey was performed in the ED using a questionnaire among the enrolled patients to identify which proposed outcomes were perceived as important by the patients according to their expectations.
resultsNinety-six consecutive patients were conveniently enrolled. For each item of the questionnaire, the percentage of patients who agreed to perceive it important were calculated. Three items were perceived important by almost 85% of the patients: getting an x-ray (91%; 95% CI: 88%-98%), obtaining a written therapy (94%; 95% CI: 87%-97%), and feeling the physicians' and nurses' empathy (97%; 95% CI: 91%-99%). The ED system was able to satisfy 2 of the 3 agreed PROs in at least 85% of the cases: getting an x-ray (97%; 95% CI: 91%-99%) and obtaining a written therapy (97%; 95% CI: 91%-99%). Moreover, in 30/96 patients (31%; 95% CI: 22%-41%), all the PROs were satisfied, and in 75/96 patients (78%; 95% CI: 69%-85%), all agreed PROs were satisfied.
conclusionsOur study shows an example of core of PROs proposed by the ED physicians and agreed by the patients. Moreover, we presented a set of PROMs which could be used to measure the quality of an ED.
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.