ArticlePatient related outcome measures2025
Evaluation of the Content Validity of the COVID-19 Symptoms Daily Diary.
Article in Patient related outcome measures, 2025. 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
Introduction: The COVID-19 Symptoms Daily Diary (CSDD) is a patient-reported outcome measure designed to assess the severity of core COVID-19 symptoms in clinical trials. The preliminary version of the CSDD was developed based on regulatory guidance and the hallmark COVID-19 symptoms identified by the CDC. This study aimed to evaluate CSDD content validity, to determine whether it is fit for the purpose of supporting efficacy endpoints in clinical trials of treatments for COVID-19. This research also sought to evaluate the appropriateness of a newly developed Pre-COVID-19 Symptoms Questionnaire. Methods: A targeted literature review was completed to evaluate the relevance of concepts included in the diary and to identify any important symptoms that may have been missing. Hybrid (concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing) semistructured qualitative interviews were then conducted across 3 iterative rounds with 30 adults in the United States recently diagnosed with COVID-19. Results: The CSDD included concepts that were most frequently reported by interview participants, including those identified as most bothersome and most important to treat. During cognitive debriefing, participants described the diary concepts as salient and reported the instructions, recall period, and response options as clear and appropriate. Only 2 of 15 CSDD items were modified across 3 interview rounds; specifically, definitions for the vomiting and diarrhea frequency items were clarified for consistent interpretation and response. Interview participants also reported general ease in understanding and responding to the Pre-COVID-19 questionnaire, with feedback resulting in only minor changes to the reference period and instructions. Conclusion: The findings of the current study provide strong evidence for the content validity of the CSDD and the appropriateness of each of the items assessed. This rigorous evaluation (aligned with regulatory guidance) indicates that the CSDD is fit for the purpose of supporting efficacy endpoints in planned clinical trials evaluating medications for COVID-19 treatment.
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.