ReviewCureus2025
Comparison of the Catquest-9SF and Cat-PROM5 Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: A Literature Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become increasingly more popular in modern medicine. The use of validated, precise, and succinct PROMs is necessary to accurately assess for changes in patients' quality of life (QoL) postoperatively and keep pace with high-volume surgery clinics. Cataract surgery is one of the most performed surgeries worldwide. The Catquest-9SF and Cat-PROM5 are PROM tools for assessing QoL improvement in postoperative cataract patients. The aim of this review is to present the advantages and disadvantages of the Catquest-9SF and the Cat-PROM5 and to discuss the clinical relevance of each. A PubMed search was performed without field restrictions for "Catquest-9SF" and "Cat-PROM5", dated January 2009 to March 14, 2025. This identified 105 articles: 95 of those referenced the Catquest-9SF, 11 of those referenced the Cat-PROM5, and one of those referenced both. These were screened to include randomized control trials, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, clinical studies, comparative studies, reviews, observational studies, and validation studies. This provided a total of 52 studies, eight studies focused on Cat-PROM5, 45 focused on Catquest-9SF, and one study with both. A review of the Cochrane database was also performed that yielded no additional items. Based on data of psychometric properties from the direct comparison study, both PROM tools exhibited excellent performance with Person Reliability indices of 0.90 (Cat-PROM5) and 0.88 (Catquest-9SF) as well as 1.45 SD (Cat-PROM5) and 1.47 SD (Catquest-9SF) for responsiveness to surgery using Cohen's standardized effect size with a correlation of R=0.85. Both the Catquest-9SF and the Cat-PROM5 perform similarly regarding psychometric properties. However, the Cat-PROM5 has a larger font and fewer questions (five items) that is preferred by patients. In contrast, the Catquest-9SF has more questions (nine items), has more data, is validated in multiple different languages, and is proven to be useful to assess other ocular conditions apart from cataracts. This would suggest that either tool could be used to great effect when assessing postoperative cataract patients, but the Catquest-9SF may be the tool of choice for other ocular conditions or procedures.
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.