SynthesisVascular medicine (London, England)2026
Evolving dynamic needs for patient-reported outcomes assessment in individuals with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA): A systematic review.
Synthesis in Vascular medicine (London, England), 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) affects over 35 million individuals and poses a potentially fatal risk. Risk stratification and surveillance strategies are well established, but their impact on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) remains diffuse and may vary by clinical and biopsychosocial profiles. It is also unclear whether individuals with this often 'silent' condition experience thriving or growth concepts referred to as 'flourishing.' To address these gaps, we systematically reviewed PRO studies in AAA to answer three questions: (1) Are there instruments tailored to AAA phenotypes (rupture, elective repair, surveillance, screening), and what patient-centered dimensions are measured? (2) What mental health assessments are commonly used? (3) Do existing PROs capture elements of flourishing? We included 16 studies. Generic PRO tools were frequently used but limited in scope. Five AAA-specific instruments were identified, focusing on physical symptoms, treatment satisfaction, and disease burden. Most were developed using Classical Test Theory, with item burden ranging from 11 to 70 items, and primarily targeted surveillance or elective surgery populations. Mental health assessment was minimal - typically single items embedded in health status instruments addressing anxiety and depression. Flourishing was indirectly assessed through measures of social connection and emotional well-being. Current PRO approaches fail to capture the heterogeneous, patient-centered experience of living with AAA. We propose a growth-based framework for PRO evaluation using adaptive testing to accommodate clinical complexity while minimizing response burden, supporting integrative, value-based, patient-centered care.
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.