ArticleArchives of disease in childhood2026
Comparative performance of common paediatric patient-reported outcome measures (P-PROMs) across health conditions.
Article in Archives of disease in childhood, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the measurement properties of paediatric patient-reported outcome measures (P-PROMs) used in clinical trials and practice for common conditions.
designData from the Australian Paediatric Multi-Instrument Comparison study were used, including children aged 5-18 years with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) (n=510), asthma (n=487), eating disorder(s) (n=216), epilepsy (n=298), recurrent abdominal pain (n=392), sleep problems (n=346), dental problems (n=490), type 1 diabetes (T1D) (n=67), enuresis (n=182) and no health conditions (reference group) (n=1259). The acceptability, response distribution (floor/ceiling effects), known-groups validity, test-retest reliability, responsiveness and convergent validity of the Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL), EuroQol Group's Youth instruments with three and five response options (EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L), Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D), Assessment of Quality of Life 6D (AQoL-6D), Health Utilities Index Mark 3 and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Paediatric Profile 25 (PROMIS-25) were assessed.
resultsPedsQL, EQ-5D-Y-3L, EQ-5D-Y-5L, CHU9D and PROMIS-25 were easy and quick to complete, indicating acceptability. Only the EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L demonstrated ceiling effect issues. All measures were able to differentiate between children with no health conditions and children with each condition (p<0.001, effect sizes between 0.47 and 3.5), indicating known-groups validity. Test-retest reliability varied by condition; however, the PedsQL and EQ-5D-Y-5L were the most reliable.
conclusionsCertain P-PROMs may be preferred in different conditions, that is, ASD (PedsQL and EQ-5D-Y-5L), asthma (PedsQL), eating disorder(s) (PedsQL and CHU9D), epilepsy (PedsQL and CHU9D), recurrent abdominal pain (PedsQL, EQ-5D-Y-5L and CHU9D), sleep problems (PedsQL), dental problems (PedsQL), T1D (PedsQL and CHU9D) and enuresis (PedsQL). Notably, the PedsQL performed favourably in all conditions assessed. More evidence is required on the responsiveness of P-PROMs to changes in child health. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621000657820.
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.