SynthesisArchives of dermatological research2023
An organizational framework for patient-reported outcome instruments in dermatologic surgery: a systematic review and qualitative analysis.
Synthesis in Archives of dermatological research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) describe measures of a patient's experience throughout medical care as reported by the patient (Mercieca-Bebber et al. in Patient Relat Outcome Meas, 2018). Various PRO instruments exist. It is challenging to select appropriate instruments given the absence of an organizational framework which describes all measurable PROs in dermatologic surgery and represents which instruments measure which outcomes. Our objective was to systematically review all validated PRO instruments in dermatologic surgery and use qualitative analysis to develop an organizational framework representing PRO measures and instruments. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane databases were searched to retrieve validated PRO instruments in the dermatologic surgery population. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis was used to develop an organizational framework representing all PROs in dermatologic surgery. All instruments were sorted into this framework. The search identified 3195 articles; 35 validated instruments were extracted and qualitatively analyzed. The organizational framework sorted all instruments into 36 PRO measures aligned with the National Institutes of Health Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (Gershon RC, Rothrock N, Hanrahan R, et al (2010) The use of PROMIS and assessment center to deliver patient-reported outcome measures in clinical research). Measures were grouped into four categories (expectations, satisfaction, quality of life, needs) describing how patients experience these outcomes and lenses through which researchers can evaluate them. In conclusion, we have proposed an organizational framework for use in choosing validated instruments to develop and answer PRO research questions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38047921What 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.