Heterogeneity of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical research.

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health and Quality of Life Outcomes Pub Date : 2024-08-17 DOI:10.1186/s12955-024-02282-7
Jan Henrik Terheyden, Lisa Gittel, Julie Jungblut, Deanna J Taylor, Frank G Holz, David P Crabb, Robert P Finger
{"title":"Heterogeneity of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical research.","authors":"Jan Henrik Terheyden, Lisa Gittel, Julie Jungblut, Deanna J Taylor, Frank G Holz, David P Crabb, Robert P Finger","doi":"10.1186/s12955-024-02282-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical research increases and use of heterogeneous instruments reflects how well diverse traits are captured by a medical specialty. In order to reflect the heterogeneity of current PROM use in ophthalmology, we reviewed the available literature.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The medical literature database Web of Science was searched for the most cited articles in clinical ophthalmology. Titles, abstracts and full text articles were reviewed for the use of PROMs and a list of the 100 most cited articles using PROMs was obtained and stratified by year of publication.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1,996 articles were screened. Seventy-seven out of the 100 articles identified included one PROM, and the average number of instruments was 1.5 ± 1.1. The most widely used PROMs were the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (33%), the Ocular Surface Disease Index (14%) and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form (13%). A simulation analysis suggested that the distribution of PROM use in ophthalmology study did not significantly differ from a power law distribution. Twenty-two percent and fifteen percent of articles did not reference and did not specify the PROM used, respectively. This rate decreased in the more recently published articles (p = 0.041).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our data suggest that the heterogeneity of PROMs applied in ophthalmology studies is low. The selection of PROMs for clinical studies should be done carefully, depending on the research goal.</p>","PeriodicalId":12980,"journal":{"name":"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11330056/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-024-02282-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical research increases and use of heterogeneous instruments reflects how well diverse traits are captured by a medical specialty. In order to reflect the heterogeneity of current PROM use in ophthalmology, we reviewed the available literature.

Methods: The medical literature database Web of Science was searched for the most cited articles in clinical ophthalmology. Titles, abstracts and full text articles were reviewed for the use of PROMs and a list of the 100 most cited articles using PROMs was obtained and stratified by year of publication.

Results: A total of 1,996 articles were screened. Seventy-seven out of the 100 articles identified included one PROM, and the average number of instruments was 1.5 ± 1.1. The most widely used PROMs were the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (33%), the Ocular Surface Disease Index (14%) and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form (13%). A simulation analysis suggested that the distribution of PROM use in ophthalmology study did not significantly differ from a power law distribution. Twenty-two percent and fifteen percent of articles did not reference and did not specify the PROM used, respectively. This rate decreased in the more recently published articles (p = 0.041).

Conclusions: Our data suggest that the heterogeneity of PROMs applied in ophthalmology studies is low. The selection of PROMs for clinical studies should be done carefully, depending on the research goal.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
临床研究中患者报告结果测量的异质性。
背景:在临床研究中,患者报告结果测量法(PROMs)的使用越来越多,不同测量工具的使用反映了一个医学专业对不同特征的捕捉程度。为了反映眼科目前使用的 PROM 的异质性,我们回顾了现有的文献:方法:我们在医学文献数据库 Web of Science 中搜索了临床眼科领域被引用次数最多的文章。我们对文章的标题、摘要和全文进行了审查,以确定是否使用了PROMs,并获得了使用PROMs引用最多的100篇文章列表,该列表按发表年份进行了分层:结果:共筛选出 1,996 篇文章。结果:共筛选出 1,996 篇文章,在确定的 100 篇文章中,有 77 篇包含一种 PROM,工具的平均数量为 1.5 ± 1.1。使用最广泛的 PROM 是美国国家眼科研究所视觉功能问卷(33%)、眼表疾病指数(14%)和医疗结果研究简表(13%)。模拟分析表明,眼科研究中 PROM 的使用分布与幂律分布无明显差异。分别有22%和15%的文章未提及和未说明所使用的PROM。这一比例在近期发表的文章中有所下降(p = 0.041):我们的数据表明,眼科研究中使用的 PROM 的异质性较低。我们的数据表明,眼科研究中使用的 PROM 的异质性较低,临床研究中应根据研究目标谨慎选择 PROM。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
2.80%
发文量
154
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes is an open access, peer-reviewed, journal offering high quality articles, rapid publication and wide diffusion in the public domain. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes considers original manuscripts on the Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) assessment for evaluation of medical and psychosocial interventions. It also considers approaches and studies on psychometric properties of HRQOL and patient reported outcome measures, including cultural validation of instruments if they provide information about the impact of interventions. The journal publishes study protocols and reviews summarising the present state of knowledge concerning a particular aspect of HRQOL and patient reported outcome measures. Reviews should generally follow systematic review methodology. Comments on articles and letters to the editor are welcome.
期刊最新文献
The subjective wellbeing of people living with Multiple Sclerosis in Australia: insights from the Personal Wellbeing Index. Cross-cultural adaptation and content validation of the Singapore English version of EQ-5D-Y: a qualitative study. Estimating the minimally important difference for the EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLQ-C30 in cancer. EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 health utilities scores of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients in China Patient-reported outcome measures for acute rhinosinusitis in adults and children: a systematic review of the quality of existing instruments
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1