ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2025
Exploring patient-reported outcome measures to assess symptoms of moderately-to-severely active Crohn's disease in adult and adolescent patients: a qualitative study.
Article 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. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo explore patients’ experience of symptoms and impacts of Crohn’s disease (CD) and evaluate content validity of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in moderately-to-severely active CD.
methodsQualitative, web-based interviews were conducted to elicit participants’ experiences with CD, and to obtain their feedback on: Patient Global Rating of Severity (PGRS:1 ‘none’ to 6 ‘very severe’), Urgency Numeric Rating Scale (Urgency NRS:0 ‘no urgency’ to 10 ‘worst possible urgency’), patient-reported symptoms from Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI; abdominal pain [AP] [severe, moderate, mild, none], well-being [WB] [terrible, very poor, poor, slightly under par, generally well], bowel movement [BM] count and stool frequency), and Bristol Stool Chart (type 1 ‘hard’ to type 7 ‘entirely liquid’), including understanding of response options, recall period and examination of meaningful improvement in CD symptoms.
resultsSeventeen adults and 3 adolescents (mean age:37.7 years; 70% female) were interviewed. Overall, 41.2% of adults had a college degree or higher. Most participants reported experiencing fatigue (n = 19), bowel urgency (n = 18), diarrhea (n = 18), AP (n = 17), and/or stool frequency (n = 15). CD impacted participants’ daily activities (n = 20), mood/emotions (n = 19), social activities/relationships (n = 19), productivity/performance at work/school (n = 18), and/or sleep (n = 15). Participants found PRO items and response options easy to understand and use and reported that it was easy to recall their symptoms over 24 h. Participants considered a 1- or 2-point reduction on PGRS as meaningful improvement. Seventeen participants considered 3-point improvement on Urgency NRS as meaningful. Participants with mild/moderate AP (n = 11) and severe AP (n = 13) considered a 1- and 2-point reduction in CDAI-AP score as meaningful improvement. Ten participants reported a 2-point reduction in CDAI-WB score as meaningful improvement if they had ‘terrible’ WB. Generally, participants considered going from 5 to 2 BMs/day as meaningful improvement. Nineteen participants considered improvement to stool type 3 to 5 on Bristol Stool Chart as meaningful.
conclusionsBowel urgency, diarrhea, and AP were the most common CD symptoms. Cognitive debriefing findings support content validity of PRO measures in patients with CD and provide insights on levels of change in PRO measures considered meaningful by patients.
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.