Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40900239›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2025

Systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): table templates for effective communication.

Ellen B M Elsman, Maarten Boers, Caroline B Terwee, Dorcas Beaton, Inger Abma, Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi, Alessandro Chiarotto, Kirstie Haywood, Karen Matvienko-Sikar, Ava Mehdipour and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. COSMIN systematic review of stigma measurement in smoking, COPD, and lung cancer: content analysis, language audit, and psychometrics.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Assessing content validity: challenges of conducting systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures and recommendations to improve the application of COSMIN guidance.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    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

13 authors.

Ellen B M ElsmanDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. e.elsman@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0680-6430
Maarten BoersDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6969-283X
Caroline B TerweeDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4570-2826
Dorcas BeatonInstitute of Work and Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5636-8766
Inger AbmaIQ Health Science Department, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3307-6736
Olalekan Lee AiyegbusiCentre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research (CPROR), University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9122-8251
Alessandro ChiarottoDepartment of General Practice, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2350-9945
Kirstie HaywoodWarwick Research in Nursing, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5405-187X
Karen Matvienko-SikarSchool of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2777-6581
Ava MehdipourSchool of Nursing, Trinity Western University, Langley, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7984-9127
Diana M OosterveerBasalt, Department of Rehabilitation, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1540-6903
Lidwine B MokkinkDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6489-2827
Martin OffringaChild Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4402-5299

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSystematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) are an important tool to guide the selection of OMIs for research and clinical practice. However, presenting the large amount of complex data pertaining both to the quality of each study (i.e., risk of bias) as well as the quality of the instrument (i.e., measurement properties), along with the underpinning certainty of evidence, is challenging. Here, we aim to provide guidance on optimizing data presentation in OMI systematic reviews, specifically focusing on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

methodsA multidisciplinary team of experts in OMI systematic reviews, research reporting, and data visualization built on existing table templates from OMERACT and the COSMIN initiative, to align with reporting items in a recently developed reporting guideline for systematic reviews of OMIs: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. To enhance clarity and usability, we applied data visualization principles by reducing non-essential elements and improving interpretability through structured layouts and concise explanatory text.

resultsWe present eight templates for reporting PROM systematic review results: three pertain to PROM characteristics, two to studies' characteristics, two to the evaluation of measurement properties, and one to the summary of findings. We also provide recommendations on whether to include these templates in the review's main manuscript or in the supplementary materials. Word versions of these templates can be downloaded from www.prisma-cosmin.ca and www.cosmin.nl .

conclusionTemplates complementing the PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 reporting guidance can be used to standardize and enhance the clarity and usefulness of OMI systematic reviews focusing on PROMs. They comprise a comprehensive set of tools to effectively report OMI systematic reviews, in service of end-users who are selecting OMIs.

Indexed as

CommunicationPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresSystematic Reviews as TopicHumansResearch DesignCOSMINData visualizationMeasurement propertiesOMERACTPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)Systematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID40900239
PMCPMC12689657

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.