Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35380317›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2022

Impact of clinical symptoms and diagnosis: the electronic Person-Specific Outcome Measure (ePSOM) development programme.

S Saunders, S Sheehan, G Muniz-Terrera, S Luz, C W Ritchie

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 40% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

S SaundersCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. stina.saunders@ed.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3323-2505
S SheehanUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics; Molecular, Genetic and Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
G Muniz-TerreraCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
S LuzUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics; Molecular, Genetic and Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
C W RitchieCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Institute of Population and Public Health · CAUniversity of Edinburgh · GBPublic Health Scotland · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRegulatory bodies recommend that outcome measures used in Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials capture clinically meaningful changes for the trial participant. However, commonly used outcome measures do not reflect the individual's views on what matters to them individually. The aim of the electronic Person-Specific Outcome Measure (ePSOM) programme is to better understand what outcomes matter to patients in early Alzheimer's disease.

methodsAs part of the ePSOM programme, we designed and ran an online study to understand what matters to individuals when developing new treatments for AD. The ePSOM survey ran Aug 2019-Dec 2019 (UK) and collected primarily free text responses which were analysed using Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques. In this paper, we focus our analyses on individuals who reported having a neurodegenerative disease diagnosis (primarily Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) or AD), reporting the most frequent and most important brain health priorities for this group. Due to a small sample size, the Diagnosis group was analysed as a whole. Finally, we compared the Diagnosis group to an age and gender matched control group using chi-squared tests to look for any differences between the Diagnosis and control groups' priorities.

resultsThe survey was completed by 5808 respondents, of whom 167 (2.9%) (women n = 91, men n = 69, other n = 7) had received one of our pre-defined neurodegenerative disease diagnosis: most commonly MCI n = 52, 1.1% (mean age 69.42, SD = 10.8); or Alzheimer's disease n = 48, 1.0% (mean age 71.24, SD = 9.79). Several thematic clusters were significantly more important for the target diagnostic group, e.g.: Expressing opinions; and less important, e.g., Cognitive Games.

conclusionWe conclude there are a range of outcomes which individuals consider important and what potential new treatments should help maintain or improve, suggesting that outcomes that matter shift along the preclinical, prodromal and overt dementia continuum. This has important implications for the development of outcome measures in long term prevention studies that last several years where participants may pass through different stages of disease. In the final stage of our project, we will design an electronic outcomes app which will employ the methodology tested in the large-scale survey to capture what matters to individuals about their brain health at an individual level.

Indexed as

Alzheimer’s diseaseBrain healthClinically meaningful changeElectronic patient reported outcome measuresOutcome measures

Identifiers

PMID35380317
PMCPMC8982721
OpenAlexW4226018540

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.