ReviewQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2018
Do patients have a say? A narrative review of the development of patient-reported outcome measures used in elective procedures for coronary revascularisation.
Review in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient-centered care in Coronary Heart Disease: what do you want to measure? A systematic review of reviews on patient-reported outcome measures.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023Pooled it
- Barriers to and Facilitators of Digital Health Among Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations: Qualitative Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Pooled it
- Effects of an 18-month community-based, multifaceted, exercise program on patient-reported outcomes in older adults at risk of fracture: secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2023Trial
- Osteoporosis and post-fracture management in the primary care setting: a systematic review.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Review
- Assessing patient engagement approaches in the development of patient reported outcome measures.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
- 6-Minute Walk Test: Exploring Factors Influencing Perceived Intensity in Older Patients Undergoing Cardiac Rehabilitation-A Qualitative Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Preparation for cardiac procedures: a cross-sectional study identifying gaps between outpatients' views and experiences of patient-centred care.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2024Article
- Article
- Use of co-design methodology in the development of cardiovascular disease secondary prevention interventions: A scoping review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Reconciling validity and challenges of patient comfort and understanding: Guidelines to patient-oriented questionnaires.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposePatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) capture health information from the patient's perspective that can be used when weighing up benefits, risks and costs of treatment. This is important for elective procedures such as those for coronary revascularisation. Patients should be involved in the development of PROMs to accurately capture outcomes that are important for the patient. The aims of this review are to identify if patients were involved in the development of cardiovascular-specific PROMs used for assessing outcomes from elective coronary revascularisation, and to explore what methods were used to capture patient perspectives.
methodsPROMs for evaluating outcomes from elective coronary revascularisation were identified from a previous review and an updated systematic search. The studies describing the development of the PROMs were reviewed for information on patient input in their conceptual and/or item development.
results24 PROMs were identified from a previous review and three additional PROMs were identified from the updated search. Full texts were obtained for 26 of the 27 PROMs. The 26 studies (11 multidimensional, 15 unidimensional) were reviewed. Only nine studies reported developing PROMs using patient input. For eight PROMs, the inclusion of patient input could not be judged due to insufficient information in the full text.
conclusionsOnly nine of the 26 reviewed PROMs used in elective coronary revascularisation reported involving patients in their conceptual and/or item development, while patient input was unclear for eight PROMs. These findings suggest that the patient's perspective is often overlooked or poorly described in the development of PROMs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.