Jan Henrik Terheyden, Lisa Gittel, Julie Jungblut, Deanna J Taylor, Frank G Holz, David P Crabb, Robert P Finger
{"title":"临床研究中患者报告结果测量的异质性。","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":"22 1","pages":"65"},"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":"{\"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\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"65\"},\"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}","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}
Heterogeneity of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical research.
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.
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.