Trial reportClinical trials (London, England)2022
Effects of patient-reported outcome assessment order.
Trial report in Clinical trials (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Administration-order effects in head-to-head comparisons of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L descriptive systems: evidence from a randomised general-population panel in Great Britain.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Trial
- Artificial intelligence in ovarian cancer: advancing in precision diagnosis and clinical management.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Using patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials: perspectives for and against a modular approach.The Medical journal of Australia · 2025Article
- Agreement of PROMIS Preference (PROPr) scores generated from the PROMIS-29 + 2 and the PROMIS-16.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Administering selected subscales of patient-reported outcome questionnaires to reduce patient burden and increase relevance: a position statement on a modular approach.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Apatinib plus Radiotherapy on the Expression of CEA and VEGF in Advanced Oligometastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn clinical trials and clinical practice, patient-reported outcomes are almost always assessed using multiple patient-reported outcome measures at the same time. This raises concerns about whether patient responses are affected by the order in which the patient-reported outcome measures are administered.
methodsThis questionnaire-based study of order effects included adult cancer patients from five cancer centers. Patients were randomly assigned to complete questionnaires via paper booklets, interactive voice response system, or tablet web survey. Linear Analogue Self-Assessment, Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System assessment tools were each used to measure general health, physical function, social function, emotional distress/anxiety, emotional distress/depression, fatigue, sleep, and pain. The order in which the three tools, and domains within tools, were presented to patients was randomized. Rates of missing data, scale scores, and Cronbach's alpha coefficients were compared by the order in which they were assessed. Analyses included Cochran-Armitage trend tests and mixed models adjusted for performance score, age, sex, cancer type, and curative intent.
resultsA total of 1830 patients provided baseline patient-reported outcome assessments. There were no significant trends in rates of missing values by whether a scale was assessed earlier or later. The largest order effect for scale scores was due to a large mean score at one assessment time point. The largest difference in Cronbach's alpha between the versions for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scales was 0.106.
conclusionThe well-being of a cancer patient has many different aspects such as pain, fatigue, depression, and anxiety. These are assessed using a variety of surveys often collected at the same time. This study shows that the order in which the different aspects are collected from the patient is not important.
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.