Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35608682›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2022

Patient-reported outcomes and medical device evaluation: from conception to implementation.

Christina M Webber, Brittany Caldwell, Fraser D Bocell, Anindita Saha, Michelle E Tarver

Abstract readLetter
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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Christina M WebberCenter for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Brittany CaldwellCenter for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Fraser D BocellCenter for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Anindita SahaCenter for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Michelle E TarverCenter for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA. michelle.tarver@fda.hhs.gov.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe insights gleaned from patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have implications across the healthcare ecosystem, from clinical investigations to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of medical devices to clinical care and reimbursement decisions. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) hosted a public meeting in September 2020 discussing how PROs can be used in medical device evaluation throughout the total product life cycle, as well as methods for developing and modifying PRO instruments to ensure they are fit-for-purpose. This commentary presents key points of discussion from the meeting, providing insight into the increased interest in PRO data to support medical product development while also exploring future opportunities of incorporating PRO data throughout healthcare. MAIN BODY: Thoughtful use of fit-for-purpose PRO instruments to integrate the patient's voice into clinical care paradigms, medical device development, regulatory decisions, and reimbursement and coverage decisions were emphasized throughout the meeting. Existing PRO instruments may be used if the context of use is appropriate. Modifications to an existing PRO instrument may also be explored to ensure the instrument is fit-for-purpose in a new context of use. Development of a novel PRO instrument may be necessary to capture attributes in a new patient population or application. Multi-stakeholder collaborations, of which patients are a key component, create efficiencies in the development and modification of PRO instruments.

conclusionContinued multi-stakeholder collaborations bringing together researchers, clinicians, patients, regulators, and payers are critical to further advance the inclusion of the patient voice incorporating PRO instruments throughout the healthcare ecosystem in an efficient manner that is least burdensome to patients.

Indexed as

EffectivenessEvaluationFDAMedical devicePatient-reported outcomeSafety

Identifiers

PMID35608682
PMCPMC9127472

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.