Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38032486›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2023

Stroke survivors' preferences on assessing patient-reported outcome measures.

Richard Schmidt, Daniela Geisler, Daniela Urban, Rebecca Pries, Christina Franzisket, Christian Voigt, Galina Ivanova, Thomas Neumuth, Joseph Classen, Markus Wagner and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. [Relevance of eHealth Literacy (eHL) for Health Services Research and Practice - Part I].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

11 authors.

Richard SchmidtDepartment of Neurology, University of Leipzig, Liebigstr. 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3611-0124
Daniela GeislerDepartment of Neurology, University of Leipzig, Liebigstr. 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Daniela UrbanDepartment of Neurology, University of Leipzig, Liebigstr. 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Rebecca PriesGerman Stroke Foundation, 33330, Gütersloh, Germany.
Christina FranzisketGerman Stroke Foundation, 33330, Gütersloh, Germany.
Christian VoigtGerman Stroke Foundation, 33330, Gütersloh, Germany.
Galina IvanovaInnovation Center Computer Assisted Surgery (ICCAS), University of Leipzig, 04109, Leipzig, Germany.
Thomas NeumuthInnovation Center Computer Assisted Surgery (ICCAS), University of Leipzig, 04109, Leipzig, Germany.
Joseph ClassenDepartment of Neurology, University of Leipzig, Liebigstr. 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Markus WagnerGerman Stroke Foundation, 33330, Gütersloh, Germany.
Dominik MichalskiDepartment of Neurology, University of Leipzig, Liebigstr. 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. dominik.michalski@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.ORCID 0000-0002-0206-5380

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo assess quality of life and unmet needs after stroke, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have gained increasing attention. However, patients' perspectives on assessing PROMs remain unclear, potentially hindering implementation into clinical practice. Therefore, this study explored patients' preferences on assessing PROMs after ischemic stroke.

methodsA paper-based questionnaire was sent to stroke survivors treated at the Department of Neurology, University of Leipzig, Germany. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL, EQ-5D-5L) and preferences regarding different aspects of data collection to assess PROMs were investigated and linked to socio-demographic and medical characteristics.

results158 persons were contacted and 80 replies were subsequently analyzed. Mean age was 70.16 years and mean HRQoL was 68.79 (visual analogue scale with a theoretical maximum of 100). Participants showed positive attitudes towards PROMs as they saw potential to improve care of other patients (n = 66/79; 83.54%) or to improve their own situation (n = 53/74; 71.62%). Participants preferred an annual interview after stroke (n = 39/80; 48.75%) and would preferably spend 15-30 min (n = 41/79; 51.90%) to answer a written survey (n = 69/80; 86.25%). The initially treating clinic was preferred as initiator of such surveys (n = 43/79; 54.43%). Stratification revealed that participants with more than 1 h of daily digital media usage preferred email as way of communication.

conclusionsFor the first time, this study showed individual preferences on assessing PROMs after ischemic stroke, focusing on the way, time interval, duration, and initiation site of surveys. These insights might help to successfully implement PROMs after stroke and subsequently detect unmet needs and deficits in stroke care.

Indexed as

Ischemic StrokeStrokeAgedHumansInternetPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeSurvivorsCerebral ischemiaPatient-reported outcome measuresPROMsStroke aftercare

Identifiers

PMID38032486
PMCPMC10689585

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.