ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025
Transforming Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement With Digital Health Technology.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Factors associated with response to patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review of systematic and scoping reviews, and meta-analyses.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Pooled it
- Exploring feasibility of health-related quality of life assessments and pain diaries in patients undergoing prehabilitation before total knee arthroplasty: a pilot study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Trial
- Remote usage of digital patient-reported outcome measures for shoulder and elbow pathologies: a systematic review.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026Review
- Impact of Vision Impairment and Microperimetry Parameters on Quality of Life in Patients with Center-Involving Diabetic Macular Edema.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Healthcare is shifting from a provider-centric to a patient-centric model, emphasizing the integration of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into routine practice. PROMs enhance shared decision-making and provide valuable insights into patient well-being, yet their widespread implementation is hindered by logistical challenges, time constraints, and infrastructure limitations. Digital health solutions offer a promising approach to overcoming these barriers by streamlining PROM administration, improving accessibility, and optimizing clinical integration. This article explores the transition from paper-based to digital PROM administration, the advantages of computerized adaptive testing (CAT), and the broader considerations necessary to ensure effective implementation. By leveraging digital tools and informatics strategies, healthcare systems can facilitate the meaningful adoption of PROMs to improve patient-centred care. This article can be used to advance PROM implementation across various clinical settings.
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.