Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35652983›Full record

ReviewJournal of patient-reported outcomes2022

Systematic review of guidance for the collection and use of patient-reported outcomes in real-world evidence generation to support regulation, reimbursement and health policy.

Konrad Maruszczyk, Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi, Barbara Torlinska, Philip Collis, Thomas Keeley, Melanie J Calvert

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Konrad MaruszczykCentre for Patient Reported Outcome Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0173-5020
Olalekan Lee AiyegbusiCentre for Patient Reported Outcome Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9122-8251
Barbara TorlinskaCentre for Patient Reported Outcome Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8284-1927
Philip CollisCentre for Patient Reported Outcome Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Thomas KeeleyCentre for Patient Reported Outcome Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Melanie J CalvertCentre for Patient Reported Outcome Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. m.calvert@bham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1856-837X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReal-world evidence (RWE) plays an increasingly important role within global regulatory and reimbursement processes. RWE generation can be enhanced by the collection and use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which can provide valuable information on the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of health interventions from the patient perspective. This systematic review aims to examine and summarise the available PRO-specific recommendations and guidance for RWE generation. METHODS AND

findingsMedical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica Database, and websites of selected organisations were systematically searched to identify relevant publications. 1,249 articles were screened of which 7 papers met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. The included publications provided PRO-specific recommendations to facilitate the use of PROs for RWE generation and these were extracted and grouped into eight major categories. These included: (1) instrument selection, (2) participation and engagement, (3) burden to health care professionals and patients, (4) stakeholder collaboration, (5) education and training, (6) PRO implementation process, (7) data collection and management, and (8) data analysis and presentation of results. The main limitation of the study was the potential exclusion of relevant publications, due to poor indexing of the databases and websites searched.

conclusionsPROs may provide valuable and crucial patient input in RWE generation. Whilst valuable insights can be gained from guidance for use of PROs in clinical care, there is a lack of international guidance specific to RWE generation in the context of use for regulatory decision-making, reimbursement, and health policy. Clear and appropriate evidence-based guidance is required to maximise the potential benefits of implementing PROs for RWE generation. Unique aspects between PRO guidance for clinical care and other purposes should be differentiated. The needs of various stakeholder groups (including patients, health care professionals, regulators, payers, and industry) should be considered when developing future guidelines.

Indexed as

GuidelinesPatient-reported outcomesPROReal-world evidenceRecommendationsRWE

Identifiers

PMID35652983
PMCPMC9163278

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.