ArticleHepatology communications2025
Meaningful differences in patient-reported outcome measurement scores in liver disease.
Article in Hepatology communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Transitional Liver Clinic: Study protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial.Hepatology communications · 2026Article
- Resilience and physical-functional HRQoL in cirrhosis: a cross-sectional study of nursing-relevant direct and indirect associations linked to psychological distress and frailty.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are being used more often in chronic liver disease (CLD) clinical care and research. Their interpretability can be greatly enhanced by establishing the smallest meaningful score difference (MSD). We report scores of commonly used PROMs and their MSDs in patients at different stages of liver disease.
methodsPatient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-29 Profile, Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire (CLDQ), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) v1.0 scores were aggregated from 2442 adults with CLD at 4 different stages: inpatients with decompensated cirrhosis (n=1146) and outpatients with cirrhosis (n=677) or CLD (n=128) or recipients of liver transplant (LT, n=490) between June 2014 and April 2023 from 3 academic centers. MSDs were estimated using distribution and anchor-based methods.
resultsThe study sample's median age was 60.0 (IQR: 51.0-66.0); 55% were male, 17% Hispanic, 84% White, and 49% college educated. The etiology of CLD was alcohol in 36%, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) in 31%, and viral hepatitis B/C in 26%. Median PROMIS domain scores were generally lowest in inpatients and highest after transplant. For PROMIS, distribution-based and anchor-based MSDs ranged from 3 to 4 for individual domains and 4 to 6 for summary scores. Distribution-based MSDs were 1 for CLDQ and ranged from 7 to 11 for individual SF-36 domains, except role limitations domains, which ranged from 15 to 18, and component scores, which were 3. When compared across stages of liver disease, PROMIS MSDs were generally similar, although they tended to be 0.5-1.0 points smaller in the decompensated population compared to the stable populations.
conclusionsThis study provides data-driven recommendations for MSDs, enhancing the interpretability of commonly used PROMs in liver disease and facilitating the integration of PROMs in various clinical and research settings.
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.