Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38512362›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2024

The challenge of using patient reported outcome measures in clinical practice: how do we get there?

David Cella, Kyle Nolla, John Devin Peipert

Open access · goldAbstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
15.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Capturing the late complications of venous thromboembolism.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026
    Review
  4. Unraveling assumptions about clinical relevance in patient-reported outcome data : A qualitative study on perspectives of different interest groups.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

David CellaFeinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 625 N. Michigan Ave, 2100, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. d-cella@northwestern.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-9881-4541
Kyle NollaFeinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 625 N. Michigan Ave, 2100, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.
John Devin PeipertFeinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 625 N. Michigan Ave, 2100, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.
Northwestern University · US

Funding

Research Design, Data, and Analytics CoreP30DK092949 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI Ronald T. Ackermann, MARSHALL H CHIN · 2011 to 2026
$10.0M
Cancer Prevention, Control, and Survivorship Research Training ProgramT32CA193193 · NCI · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI Brian L Hitsman, BETINA YANEZ · 2015 to 2026
$3.8M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA193193NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092949
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) become available to clinicians for routine clinical decision-making, many wonder how to define a meaningful change in a patient's PROM score. Some PROMs have a specific threshold that indicates meaningful change, but since those numbers are based on population averages, they do not necessarily apply to the varying experiences of each individual patient. Rather than viewing this as a weakness of PROMs, it is worth considering how clinicians use other existing measures in clinical decision-making-and whether PROMs can be used similarly. BODY: An informal survey of 43 clinicians reported using measures such as weight, blood pressure, and blood chemistry to inform clinical decision-making. Although clinicians were very consistent with what constituted a meaningful change for some measures (e.g., ECOG performance status), other measures had considerable variability (e.g., weight), often informed by their specialization (for example, differing thresholds for meaningful weight change for adult primary care, pediatrics, and oncology). For interpreting change in measures, they relied on clinical experience (44%), published literature (38%), and established guidelines (35%). In open-response comments, many clarified that the results of any measure had to be taken in the context of each individual patient before making treatment decisions. In short, clinicians already apply individualized clinical judgment when interpreting score changes in existing clinical measures. As clinicians gain familiarity with PROMs, PROMs will likely be utilized in the same way.

conclusionLike other clinical measures from weight to blood chemistry, change in a PROM score is but one piece of a patient's clinical story. Rather than relying on a hard-and-fast number for defining clinically meaningful change in a PROM score, providers should-and many already do-consider the full scope of a patient's experience as they make treatment decisions.

Indexed as

Decision MakingPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultChildHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesClinical decision-makingMeaningful changePatient-reported outcomes

Identifiers

PMID38512362
PMCPMC10957801
OpenAlexW4393050025

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.