Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37145229›Full record

ReviewNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2023

Patient-reported outcome measures in drugs for neurological conditions approved by European Medicines Agency 2017-2022.

Oriana Ciani, Michela Meregaglia, Mario Alberto Battaglia, Gianpaolo Brichetto, Antonella Conte, Claudio Gasperini, Valeria Sansone

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Patient reported outcome measures in spinal muscular atrophy and duchenne muscular dystrophy: review of instruments and their inclusion in clinical and regulatory processes.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors.

Oriana CianiGovernment, Health & Not-for-Profit Division, Center for Research On Health and Social Care Management, SDA Bocconi School of Management, Health Economics & HTA, MEO Building, Room W210, II Floor, Via Sarfatti 10, 20136, Milan, Italy. oriana.ciani@unibocconi.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3607-0508
Michela MeregagliaGovernment, Health & Not-for-Profit Division, Center for Research On Health and Social Care Management, SDA Bocconi School of Management, Health Economics & HTA, MEO Building, Room W210, II Floor, Via Sarfatti 10, 20136, Milan, Italy.
Mario Alberto BattagliaItalian Multiple Sclerosis (AISM) Society, Genoa, Italy.
Gianpaolo BrichettoAssociazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla (AISM) Rehabilitation Center, Genoa, Italy.
Antonella ConteDepartment of Human Neurosciences, Sapienza, University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Claudio GasperiniItalian Society of Neurology (SIN), Siena, Italy.
Valeria SansoneNeMO Clinical Center, Neurorehabilitation Unit, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.

Funding

Roche Italia PRO4ALL
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRegulatory agencies have been responsive to public demand for inclusion of the patient experience in evaluating and approving therapies. Over the years, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become increasingly prevalent in clinical trial protocols; however, their influence on regulators, payers, clinicians, and patients' decision-making is not always clear. We recently conducted a cross-sectional study aimed at investigating the use of PROMs in new regulatory approvals of drugs for neurological conditions between 2017 and 2022 in Europe.

methodsWe reviewed European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) and recorded on a predefined data extraction form whether they considered PROMs, their characteristics (e.g., primary/secondary endpoint, generic/specific instrument) and other relevant information (e.g., therapeutic area, generic/biosimilar, orphan status). Results were tabulated and summarized by means of descriptive statistics.

resultsOf the 500 EPARs related to authorized medicines between January 2017 and December 2022, 42 (8%) concerned neurological indications. Among the EPARs of these products, 24 (57%) reported any use of PROMs, typically considered as secondary (38%) endpoints. In total, 100 PROMs were identified, of which the most common were the EQ-5D (9%), the SF-36 (6%), or its shorter adaptation SF-12, the PedsQL (4%).

conclusionsCompared to other disease areas, neurology is one where the use of patient-reported outcomes evidence is inherently part of the clinical evaluation and for which core outcome sets exist. Better harmonization of the instruments recommended for use would facilitate the consideration of PROMs at all stages in the drug development process.

Indexed as

Drug ApprovalPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresCross-Sectional StudiesEuropeHumansEuropean Medicines AgencyPatient-reported outcomes

Identifiers

PMID37145229
PMCPMC10344960

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.