SynthesisQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2026
Eligibility definitions and response rate accuracy in studies using routinely collected PROMs: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePatient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to assess treatment outcomes and quality of care. This systematic review examined how eligible populations and response rates (RRs) were reported in published studies using routinely collected PROMs.
methodsA systematic literature search in the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cinahl, PsycINFO and Cochrane library databases on Jan 15, 2024, and Feb 10, 2025, focused on studies employing routinely collected PROM data in research. Articles not related to a health care context were excluded. Definitions of eligibility were categorized as "all treated", "all recruited" or "other". RRs were obtained at baseline (BL) and the last follow-up (FU), and their accuracy was assessed according to the eligibility definitions.
resultsFrom 3806 abstracts and 344 full-text articles, 92 articles (94 datasets) were included. Eligibility was defined as "all treated" in 26% of the studies and as "all recruited or "other" in 41% and 33%, respectively. Authors frequently fail to apply their own eligibility definitions in RR calculations, leading to incorrect RRs in 47% of datasets due to incomplete eligible populations or flawed denominator choices. Only 5% of studies clearly defined RRs. RR values varied widely. The systematic use of a defined eligible population was linked to a decline in average RRs over the FU.
conclusionThese findings suggest that inaccurate eligibility definitions and denominator use may bias RRs, limiting the reliability of PROM data. Although PROM datasets are increasingly used, data quality remains underdiscussed. This review highlights the need to improve the reporting of eligibility and RRs while using routinely collected PROMs. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023494821.
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.