Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41657930›Full record

ArticleGMS journal for medical education2026

Patient-related outcome measures in medical education research.

Marjo Wijnen-Meijer, John Norcini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GMS journal for medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Marjo Wijnen-MeijerTechnische Universität Dresden, Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus, Institut für Didaktik und Lehrforschung in der Medizin, Dresden, Germany.
John NorciniFoundation for Advancement of International, Medical Education and Research, Philadelphia, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of patient-related outcomes in medical education research has gained traction over the past 25 years, yet it remains underutilized. In 2001, less than 7% of medical education publications included patient outcomes, despite the goal being the production of high-quality healthcare providers. This commentary discusses common sources of patient outcome data, their applications, and challenges. Administrative databases and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are key sources of data, with PROMs capturing patients' direct reports of their health status. PROMs are particularly useful when administrative data are scarce, such as in Europe. They can be employed to assess a variety of educational impacts, including the effect of physician experience on patient satisfaction and outcomes, as well as error rates in diagnosis and treatment. Challenges in using such data include difficulty identifying appropriate outcomes and attribution of results to individual providers given patient-specific factors and the growing importance of team-based care. Consequently, large numbers of patients are needed to produce meaningful results. Despite these challenges, PROMs hold promise for improving medical education by focusing on what is most important - outcomes for patients.

Indexed as

Education, MedicalPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresHumansPatient Satisfactionmedical education researchpatient-related outcomespatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)

Identifiers

PMID41657930
PMCPMC12875050

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.