Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39153981›Full record

ReviewHealth and quality of life outcomes2024

Heterogeneity of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical research.

Jan Henrik Terheyden, Lisa Gittel, Julie Jungblut, Deanna J Taylor, Frank G Holz, David P Crabb, Robert P Finger

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Quality of life of primary caregivers by severity and control of children's asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  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

7 authors.

Jan Henrik TerheydenDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Bonn, Ernst-Abbe-Str. 2, Bonn, 53127, Germany. jan.terheyden@ukbonn.de.
Lisa GittelDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Bonn, Ernst-Abbe-Str. 2, Bonn, 53127, Germany.
Julie JungblutDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Bonn, Ernst-Abbe-Str. 2, Bonn, 53127, Germany.
Deanna J TaylorDepartment of Optometry and Visual Sciences, City, University of London, School of Health and Psychological Sciences, London, UK.
Frank G HolzDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Bonn, Ernst-Abbe-Str. 2, Bonn, 53127, Germany.
David P CrabbDepartment of Optometry and Visual Sciences, City, University of London, School of Health and Psychological Sciences, London, UK.
Robert P FingerDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Bonn, Ernst-Abbe-Str. 2, Bonn, 53127, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical research increases and use of heterogeneous instruments reflects how well diverse traits are captured by a medical specialty. In order to reflect the heterogeneity of current PROM use in ophthalmology, we reviewed the available literature.

methodsThe medical literature database Web of Science was searched for the most cited articles in clinical ophthalmology. Titles, abstracts and full text articles were reviewed for the use of PROMs and a list of the 100 most cited articles using PROMs was obtained and stratified by year of publication.

resultsA total of 1,996 articles were screened. Seventy-seven out of the 100 articles identified included one PROM, and the average number of instruments was 1.5 ± 1.1. The most widely used PROMs were the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (33%), the Ocular Surface Disease Index (14%) and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form (13%). A simulation analysis suggested that the distribution of PROM use in ophthalmology study did not significantly differ from a power law distribution. Twenty-two percent and fifteen percent of articles did not reference and did not specify the PROM used, respectively. This rate decreased in the more recently published articles (p = 0.041).

conclusionsOur data suggest that the heterogeneity of PROMs applied in ophthalmology studies is low. The selection of PROMs for clinical studies should be done carefully, depending on the research goal.

Indexed as

OphthalmologyPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresBiomedical ResearchHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesClinical trialsOphthalmologyPatient-reported outcome measures

Identifiers

PMID39153981
PMCPMC11330056

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.