SynthesisFrontiers in health services2025
Standardizing patient-reported outcomes across diseases: development of a novel generic patient-reported outcome set.
Synthesis in Frontiers in health services, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an essential component in the implementation of value-based health care. Up to now, no consensus exists on the appropriateness of PROs used across diseases, e.g., to allow for comparability or to assess disease impact. The aim of this study was to develop an international, multi-stakeholder consensus on a generic PRO set applicable for different stakeholders and diseases within of the Health Outcomes Observatory (H2O) project funded by the EU Innovative Medicines Initiative. Methods: To begin, a literature review was conducted to identify the most frequently utilized generic PROs followed by a three-round Delphi consensus procedure. The resulting outcome set was then cross-referenced with disease-specific outcome sets for lung and metastatic breast cancer, diabetes, and inflammatory bowel diseases to identify overlaps and gaps. Lastly, the identified generic outcome domains were mapped to the Max Neef's human needs model to explore the degree to which the generic domains address a general concept of wellbeing. Results: The literature search resulted in 2357 articles from which 190 PROMs and their measured domains were extracted. The Delphi consensus procedure reduced these to 10 core domains (mental, physical and social wellbeing, overall health status, fatigue, pain, sleep quality, sexuality, self-efficacy, treatment satisfaction). In comparison to the human needs model, needs such as identity and leisure were disregarded. Conclusions: The H2O generic outcome set presents a disease-generic, domain-centered PRO framework building the groundwork for health data spaces and supporting consistency in treatment outcomes across different sites, settings, and patient populations.
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.