ReviewJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2026
Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in the Emergency Department: A Scoping Review.
Review in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly utilized to support clinical care by capturing health status from the patient's perspective. Although the application of PROMs in an emergency department (ED) context is expanding, their scope remains poorly mapped. This scoping review aims to identify and characterize the PROMs used to assess the health status of adult patients in the ED in the initial clinical evaluation, with focus on supporting clinical decision-making and developing individual care and treatment plans. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using the MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsychINFO databases to identify studies utilizing PROMs in ED settings published between January 2000 and February 2025. The review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews and the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. Results: The review identified 173 unique PROMs, within the literature utilizing measurement properties. The most prevalent themes were mental health, substance use, and older people; whereas, PROMs for general conditions remained relatively scarce. Twenty-three studies detailed the development of new PROMs, whereas 22 studies described the adaptation of existing PROMs for the ED setting. Notably, most of the identified studies and PROMs were employed primarily for research purposes, with limited emphasis on providing direct clinical feedback. Conclusion: The predominance of research-oriented PROMs underscores a potential gap in translating these measures into clinical practice. Furthermore, the findings suggest that most existing PROMs focus on identifying specific patient vulnerabilities, pointing toward a relative scarcity of tools designed to assess general medical conditions in the ED.
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.