ArticleRheumatology advances in practice2021
Patient-Reported Experience Measures in outpatient rheumatology care: a systematic review.
Article in Rheumatology advances in practice, 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.
- Australian adaptation and external validation of Commissioning for Quality in Rheumatoid Arthritis-RA-Patient Reported Experience Measure (CQRA-RA-PREM).Rheumatology advances in practice · 2024Article
- Joining forces to understand what matters most: qualitative insights into the patient experience of outpatient rheumatology care.Rheumatology advances in practice · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThere is a growing acceptance of the need for routine implementation of patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in health care. Rheumatology patients, as frequent and long-term users of care, stand to benefit from collection of experience-related data. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review to identify and critically appraise the development and psychometric validation of PREMs in rheumatology.
methodsSix databases were searched systematically from inception to 14 December 2020: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Cochrane and Google Scholar. We included articles in English that described the use or development of PREMs, with results of psychometric testing, in an adult outpatient rheumatology context. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021233819). Articles were appraised using the COnsensus Based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) (i) Risk of Bias checklist and (ii) criteria for good measurement properties.
resultsThe search yielded 3809 publications, and six studies met inclusion criteria. All the included studies on PREM development fulfilled COSMIN standards for 'doubtful' or 'inadequate' quality of instrument development. One study fulfilled a 'sufficient' rating for content validity, and the remainder fulfilled 'inconsistent' ratings. During validity testing, studies fulfilled between one and four of the eight COSMIN checklist criteria for good measurement properties.
conclusionMethodological concerns regarding instrument development and validation limit the generalizability of the existing six validated PREMs in use in rheumatology contexts. There is a need for further well-designed studies to validate existing and new PREMs in this area.
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.