ReviewBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
A narrative review of the use of PROMs and machine learning to impact value-based clinical decision-making.
Review in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient-reported outcomes as markers and predictors of functional recovery in musculoskeletal rehabilitation.Rheumatology international · 2026Review
- Modeling and forecasting neonatal mortality in Ethiopia: a comparative study using statistical, machine learning, and deep learning approaches.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026Article
- Measurement Properties of an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Patients with Non-Dialysis-Dependent CKD.Kidney360 · 2026Article
- Barriers and Facilitators to Health Care AI Adoption Among Those Living in Wales and Working in Health Care in Wales: Online Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- A personalized online intervention to enhance back pain-related self-efficacy: A two-arm randomized controlled trial (IDRIS).Internet interventions · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis review summarises the studies which combined Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and Machine Learning statistical computational techniques, to predict patient post-intervention outcomes. The aim of the project was to inform those working in value-based healthcare how Machine Learning can be used with PROMs to inform clinical practice.
methodsA systematic search strategy was developed and run in six databases. The records were reviewed by a reviewer if they matched the review scope, and these decisions were scrutinised by a second reviewer.
results82 records pertaining to 73 studies were identified. The review highlights the breadth of PROMs tools investigated, and the wide variety of Machine Learning techniques utilised across the studies. The findings suggest that there has been some success in predicting post-intervention patient outcomes. Nevertheless, there is no clear best performing Machine Learning approach to analyse this data, and while baseline PROMs scores are often a key predictor of post-intervention scores, this cannot always be assumed to be the case. Moreover, even when studies looked at similar conditions and patient groups, often different Machine Learning techniques performed best in each study.
conclusionThis review highlights that there is a potential for PROMs and Machine Learning methodology to predict patient post-intervention outcomes, but that best performing models from other previous studies cannot simply be adopted in new clinical contexts.
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.