Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40615892›Full record

ReviewBMC medical informatics and decision making2025

A narrative review of the use of PROMs and machine learning to impact value-based clinical decision-making.

Michal Pruski, Simone Willis, Kathleen Withers

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors.

Michal PruskiSchool of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7582-1418
Simone WillisSpecialist Unit for Review Evidence, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. WillisS5@cardiff.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-3949-7651
Kathleen WithersCEDAR, Cardiff and Vale UHB, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9514-2025

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis review summarises the studies which combined Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and Machine Learning statistical computational techniques, to predict patient post-intervention outcomes. The aim of the project was to inform those working in value-based healthcare how Machine Learning can be used with PROMs to inform clinical practice.

methodsA systematic search strategy was developed and run in six databases. The records were reviewed by a reviewer if they matched the review scope, and these decisions were scrutinised by a second reviewer.

results82 records pertaining to 73 studies were identified. The review highlights the breadth of PROMs tools investigated, and the wide variety of Machine Learning techniques utilised across the studies. The findings suggest that there has been some success in predicting post-intervention patient outcomes. Nevertheless, there is no clear best performing Machine Learning approach to analyse this data, and while baseline PROMs scores are often a key predictor of post-intervention scores, this cannot always be assumed to be the case. Moreover, even when studies looked at similar conditions and patient groups, often different Machine Learning techniques performed best in each study.

conclusionThis review highlights that there is a potential for PROMs and Machine Learning methodology to predict patient post-intervention outcomes, but that best performing models from other previous studies cannot simply be adopted in new clinical contexts.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingMachine LearningPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresHumansAlgorithmsDecision-makingPatient reported outcomesPredictionPrudent healthcareValue in health

Identifiers

PMID40615892
PMCPMC12226851

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.