Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38756176›Full record

ArticleHealth affairs scholar2024

Selecting patient-reported outcome measures: "what" and "for whom".

Jason B Liu, Nan E Rothrock, Maria O Edelen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health affairs scholar, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Exploring the lived experiences of women with metastatic breast cancer and their HRQoL questionnaire preferences: a qualitative study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. A Surgeon's Field Guide to Value-Based Specialty Care.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. 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.

Jason B LiuPatient-Reported Outcomes, Value, and Experience (PROVE) Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7083-5703
Nan E RothrockDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4821-5030
Maria O EdelenPatient-Reported Outcomes, Value, and Experience (PROVE) Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1381-1465

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) are becoming more widely implemented across health care for important reasons. However, with thousands of PROMs available and the science of psychometrics becoming more widely applied in health measurement, choosing the right ones to implement can be puzzling. This article provides a framework of the different types of PROMs by organizing them into 4 categories based upon "what" is being measured and "from whom" the questions are asked: (1) condition-specific and domain-specific, (2) condition-specific and global, (3) universal and global, and (4) universal and domain-specific. We delve deeper into each category with clinical examples. This framework can empower health care leaders and policymakers to make more informed decisions when selecting the best PROMs to implement, ensuring PROMs deliver on their potential to promote high quality, patient-centered care.

Indexed as

health outcomesimplementationpatient-centered carepatient-reported outcomesPROMsquality of carevalue-based health care

Identifiers

PMID38756176
PMCPMC11034532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.