Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40548208›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of methodology2025

Variations in quantifying patient reported outcome measures to estimate treatment effect.

Sathish Muthu, Srujun Vadranapu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Comparative outcome analyses of stromal vascular fractionWorld journal of experimental medicine · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sathish MuthuDepartment of Orthopaedics, Orthopaedic Research Group, Coimbatore 641045, Tamil Nadu, India.
Srujun VadranapuDepartment of Orthopaedics, Royal Care Super Speciality Hospital, Coimbatore 641062, Tamil Nadu, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the practice of healthcare, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and PRO measures (PROMs) are used as an attempt to observe the changes in complex clinical situations. They guide us in making decisions based on the evidence regarding patient care by recording the change in outcomes for a particular treatment to a given condition and finally to understand whether a patient will benefit from a particular treatment and to quantify the treatment effect. For any PROM to be usable in health care, we need it to be reliable, encapsulating the points of interest with the potential to detect any real change. Using structured outcome measures routinely in clinical practice helps the physician to understand the functional limitation of a patient that would otherwise not be clear in an office interview, and this allows the physician and patient to have a meaningful conversation as well as a customized plan for each patient. Having mentioned the rationale and the benefits of PROMs, understanding the quantification process is crucial before embarking on management decisions. A better interpretation of change needs to identify the treatment effect based on clinical relevance for a given condition. There are a multiple set of measurement indices to serve this effect and most of them are used interchangeably without clear demarcation on their differences. This article details the various quantification metrics used to evaluate the treatment effect using PROMs, their limitations and the scope of usage and implementation in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Minimal clinical important differenceMinimum detectable changeOrthopedicsPatient-accepted symptom statePatient-reported outcome measuresTreatment effect

Identifiers

PMID40548208
PMCPMC11612729

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.