ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Making Patient-reported Outcome Measures Patient-friendly: Applying "Patient-reported Outcomes Tools: Engaging Users and Stakeholders" Guidelines to a Graphical "Report Card" for Cleft Outcomes.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), such as the CLEFT-Q, provide valuable insights into the psychosocial and functional well-being of patients with cleft lip and/or palate. Ideally, PROM data should not only inform clinicians and researchers but should also be shared back with patients and families; however, no guidelines exist for formatting CLEFT-Q data for patient review. This study evaluated different methods of displaying CLEFT-Q data to identify visual formats best suited for patient and clinician use. Methods: Patients and families participated in a modified Delphi process to assess data presentation formats developed according to the Patient-reported Outcomes Tools: Engaging Users and Stakeholders (PROTEUS) Consortium guidelines. Participants completed interpretation tasks, rated clarity and usefulness, and provided qualitative feedback. Using iterative Delphi rounds, the visualization style, color use, and semantic markups were refined. Results: Tables and complex graphics (eg, polar charts, histograms, ridgeplots) were considered overly complex. Bar charts were well-understood, but participants preferred a simplified "horizontal number line" showing score ranges, individual scores, and comparators (eg, average scores of similar patients). "Traffic light" color motifs were rejected because they connoted "good" versus "bad," whereas gray backgrounds were preferred for maintaining objectivity and clarity. Conclusions: Data visualization must balance information density with clarity and understandability. Statistical graphics that are preferred by clinicians and researchers were shown to be too confusing, whereas an infographic "number line" was preferred by patients and families. Our findings for CLEFT-Q and FACE-Q may be applicable to other PROMs.
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.