ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2023
SCI-QOL and WOUND-Q Have the Best Patient-reported Outcome Measure Design: A Systematic Literature Review of PROMs Used in Chronic Wounds.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Linking Patient-Reported and Clinician-Assessed Wound Status via Chatbot-Based Digital Surveillance for Wound Infection: Retrospective Observational Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Observational
- [Person-centered wound care : Legitimation and theoretical concept].Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2025Article
- "I Never Thought They Would Ever Take Off My Toes": A Qualitative Illness Trajectory Study in People With Diabetic Foot Syndrome.International wound journal · 2025Article
- The Impact of Underlying Conditions on Quality-of-Life Measurement Among Patients with Chronic Wounds, as Measured by Utility Values: A Review with an Additional Study.Advances in wound care · 2023Review
- Patient and wound factors associated with WOUND-Q scales measuring health-related quality of life: An international cross-sectional study.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair SocietyArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic wounds are a significant burden on healthcare systems due to high costs of care (2%-4% total healthcare cost) and a considerable burden on patient's quality of life. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires developed to enable patient self-assessments of their outcomes. A gap in knowledge exists because previous reviews on wound-specific PROMs did not evaluate the quality of the development. The main question is which PROM has the best quality development properties and should be used in clinical care and research. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were searched from their inception through December 2021. Studies that included patients aged 18 years or older, with chronic wounds, and who reported using a condition-specific PROM for wounds were extracted. We excluded generic PROMs, comments, guidelines, and editorial letters. The COSMIN-guidelines were used to evaluate the quality of the PROMs. Results: Of the 16,356 articles, a total of 251 articles describing 33 condition-specific PROMs for wounds were used. In total, 17 of 33 (52%) PROMs were developed for specific wound types, and nine of 33 (27%) PROMs were developed for any type of wound. Two of 33 (6%) PROMs were not rated because no development article was available. Only the SCI-QOL (Spinal Cord Injury-QOL) and the WOUND-Q rated "very good" in PROM design. Conclusions: Thirty-three condition-specific PROMs were found. Only the SCI-QOL and the WOUND-Q rated very good in PROM design. The WOUND-Q is the only condition-specific PROM, which can be used in all types of chronic wounds in any anatomic location.
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.