ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2024
The challenge of using patient reported outcome measures in clinical practice: how do we get there?
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Opportunities and challenges in implementing digital patient-centred cancer care in Europe-a qualitative study of several ESMO Designated Centres.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Article
- Integrating Patient-Reported Outcomes into Clinical Pathways in Atrial Fibrillation: A Framework Aligned with the AF-CARE Model.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Capturing the late complications of venous thromboembolism.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Review
- 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 · 2026Article
- Clinical assessment of lateral ankle sprains among Swedish physiotherapists: a nationwide survey comparing practice to international and locally modified frameworks.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Assessment of the Awareness and Use of Quality of Life Tools in Small Animal Practices in Germany.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- The importance of patient-reported outcomes: A call for their integration in the routine care of patients with multiple sclerosis.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2025Review
- Measuring more than just centimeters: a scoping review of outcome measures in cosmetic stature lengthening.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Review
- Does adjuvant chemotherapy result in poorer health-related quality of life among colorectal cancer patients? A longitudinal multisite observational study in Singapore.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Observational
- Artificial intelligence and science of patient input: a perspective from people with multiple sclerosis.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.