ReviewJournal of patient-reported outcomes2025
Patient reported outcomes in pediatric physical therapy: a scoping review and evidence map.
Review in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development of a Core Patient-Reported Outcome (Measures) Set for Pediatric Physical Therapy.Pediatric physical therapy : the official publication of the Section on Pediatrics of the American Physical Therapy Association · 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) can be used as tools for understanding patients’ health perceptions. Gaining a comprehensive understanding of the landscape of PROs and PROMs within PPT, along with identifying potentially valuable (generic) PROs for the specific context and population, provides a valuable foundation for developing recommendations on PROM use in PPT.
objectivesTo provide a scoping review of measured PROs in studies describing PPT interventions. Additionally, to provide an overview of used PROMs in PPT.
methodsThis review is conducted based on the PRISMA-ScR Checklist. A systematic search was conducted in Medline (2013–2023). Peer-reviewed studies for children aged 4–17 years with problems in physical functioning, were included when a described intervention was related to PPT or exercise therapy, and the studies reported PROs or used PROMs (proxy/self-reported). PROs were extracted verbatim, categorized and labelled based on the Alonso & Valderas model. A graphical overview was created to synthesize PROs measured per diagnosis.
results172 studies were included. We identified 168 measured PROs which could be categorized into 40 unique PROs, measured with 158 PROMs. Most measured PROs fell in the ‘Functional Status – Activities and Participation’ and ‘Symptom Status’ classification of the Alonso and Valderas model.
conclusionAn excessive number of PROs and PROMs is used in PPT, which complicates standardization and implementation of PROMs. Harmonization of PRO(M)s in PPT is needed to address this problem. Therefore, a generic core set of PROs and PROMs should be developed for daily practice and research within PPT.
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.