ReviewArchives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation2022
Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Measures in Clinical Research in Patients With Stroke: A Systematic Literature Review.
Review in Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- ESTREL-Fatigue-association of levodopa with post-stroke fatigue.European stroke journal · 2026Trial
- Review
- Familial Cerebral Cavernous Malformations: Pathophysiology, Genetics, Biomarkers, and Treatment Perspectives.Journal of neurochemistry · 2026Review
- Relationship Between Objective Performance and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function in Patients With Stroke.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Patient-reported outcome measure and its application in patients with stroke: item response theory.Stroke and vascular neurology · 2025Article
- Distinct Constructs Underlie Patient-Reported and Performance-Rated Outcomes after Stroke.Annals of neurology · 2025Article
- Stroke survivors' preferences on assessing patient-reported outcome measures.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically describe the use and outcomes of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures in clinical studies in populations with stroke. Data Sources: A systematic search on the use of PROMIS measures in clinical stroke studies in 9 electronic databases. Study Selection: Studies had to be original, reporting on outcome data using PROMIS measures in populations with stroke (ischemic and/or hemorrhagic), from January 1st, 2007. Initially, 174 unique studies met the inclusion criteria. In 2 steps, titles, abstracts and full-text articles were screened for eligibility (2 authors independently). Data Extraction: From the selected articles, study characteristics, type of PROMIS measures, and its outcomes were extracted by 2 authors independently. The authors discussed their views to achieve consensus. A third author was consulted if necessary. Data Synthesis: In total, 27 studies (24,366 patients) were included, predominantly from the United States (22); most study populations were hospital-based (20); the number of patients ranged from 30-3283. In general, patients had no or mild symptoms (median modified Rankin scale 1). Two different generic PROMIS measures were reported (PROMIS Global Health, PROMIS 29) and 9 PROMIS measures focusing on specific domains (sleep, pain, physical functioning, self-efficacy, satisfaction with social roles, depression, anxiety, cognition, fatigue). These match the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) domains mentioned in the Core Set for Stroke. The measures were administered 1-55 months after stroke. Outcome data are provided. Pooling of data was not achieved because of a large variety in study characteristics (inclusion criteria, follow-up moments, data processing). Conclusions: The PROMIS measures in this review could be relevant from a patient's perspective, covering ICF core set domains for patients with stroke. The large variety in study characteristics hampers comparisons across populations. Many different outcome measures are used to report results of stroke rehabilitation studies.
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.