ArticlePatient related outcome measures2022
How to Improve Interpretability of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Clinical Use: A Perspective on Measuring Abilities and Feelings.
Article in Patient related outcome measures, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Outcomes in clinical trials on sarcopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2026Pooled it
- "Numbers call for action, personalized narratives provide support and recognition": a qualitative assessment of cancer patients' perspectives on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) feedback with narratives.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Article
- Validating the 2-minute walk test MCID for subacute stroke patients: A Pakistani multicenter cohort analysis.PloS one · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two general classes of concepts measured by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are abilities and feelings. Over the past several decades, there has been a significant progress in measuring both. Nevertheless, current multi-item scales are subject to criticism related to scale length, score dimensionality, interpretability, cultural bias, and insufficient detail in measuring specific domains. To address some of these issues, the author offers an alternative perspective on how questions about abilities and feelings could be formulated. Abilities can be defined in terms of a relationship between the level of performance and the associated perception of difficulty, and represented graphically by an ability curve. For feelings, it may be useful to measure frequency and intensity jointly to determine the proportion of time in each level of intensity. The resultant frequency × intensity matrix can be presented as a bar graph. Empirical data to support the feasibility and validity of these approaches to PROM design are provided, potential advantages and limitations are discussed, and some future research avenues are suggested.
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.