Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34768627›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2021

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Endometriosis.

Alba Nicolas-Boluda, Anne Oppenheimer, Jerome Bouaziz, Arnaud Fauconnier

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation into Brazilian Portuguese and electronic migration of the WERF EPHect endometriosis patient questionnaire.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alba Nicolas-BoludaOneClinic, 75008 Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-3029-8755
Anne OppenheimerEA 7285 Research Unit "Risk and Safety in Clinical Medicine for Women and Perinatal Health", Versailles-Saint-Quentin University (UVSQ), 78180 Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France.
Jerome BouazizOneClinic, 75008 Paris, France.
Arnaud FauconnierEA 7285 Research Unit "Risk and Safety in Clinical Medicine for Women and Perinatal Health", Versailles-Saint-Quentin University (UVSQ), 78180 Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France.
Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROM) evoke measurements that allow capturing patients' perspectives on their condition. In endometriosis care, physicians' understanding of the effect of the disease and the treatment on patients is often poor. The use of PROMs in endometriosis clinical practice can facilitate patient-provider communication and the implementation of patient-centered care, improve patients' quality of life, as well as provide a tool for patients' self-management of the disease. Today, PROMs are extensively used in research and clinical trials, however they are barely used in clinical practice. The development of digital tools facilitating capturing PROMs can contribute to their use by physicians in routine endometriosis care. However, all PROMs are not adapted to be used in routine care in the context of endometriosis. The objective of this study was to present a catalogue of available PROMs for routine endometriosis care and evaluate them according to selected criteria. To do so, we explored the different PROMs currently in the literature. Consequently, 48 PROM were identified as tools used to evaluate various dimensions of the impact of endometriosis on patients. The selected PROMs were evaluated for their potential to be used as a standard in clinical practice in endometriosis. The selected catalogue of PROMs is the starting point for the integration of digital tools to capture PROMs and the development of patient-centered dashboards to be used by patients and clinicians in endometriosis care and self-management to improve care processes, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and outcomes.

Indexed as

endometriosispatient reported outcome measuresquality of life

Identifiers

PMID34768627
PMCPMC8585017
OpenAlexW3211067859

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.