ArticleSaudi medical journal2025
Patient-reported outcome measurements in clinical trials in Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov.
Article in Saudi medical journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo quantify use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in interventional trials conducted in Saudi Arabia and to determine whether PRO usage varies according to key trial characteristics.
methodsThe ClinicalTrials.gov database was searched to identify all interventional trials located in Saudi Arabia. Two authors screened each trial's primary and secondary outcomes and categorized each trial into: (1) trials in which PROs were mentioned or (2) trials in which PROs were not mentioned. The Chi-square test was used to examine associations between PRO use and certain trial characteristics.
resultsThe search identified 933 trials. Forty percent (n=371) reported PROs as primary (n=141, 38%) or secondary (n=178, 48%) outcomes or both (n=52, 14%). The number of PRO instruments was 535. Pain was the most common PRO (n=164, 31%). Trials characteristics associated with more use of PROs included nonindustry-sponsored trials, trials focusing on nondrug interventions, phase 3 trials and trials conducted exclusively in Saudi Arabia.
conclusionForty percent of the registered clinical trials in Saudi Arabia used at least one PRO. This highlights the need to address barriers to PRO use to facilitate generation of local evidence.
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.