ArticleJournal of neurodevelopmental disorders2025
Patient reported outcomes used in clinical trials and core outcome sets for individuals with genetic intellectual disability: a scoping review.
Article in Journal of neurodevelopmental disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- What Matters Most? Developing a Core Patient Reported Outcome Set for Individuals With Genetic Intellectual Disabilities: An International Delphi Study.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2026Article
- Patient reported outcomes that matter to individuals with (genetic) intellectual disabilities: a qualitative study.Journal of neurodevelopmental disorders · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe impact of genetic intellectual disability (GID) on daily life is significant. To better understand the impact of GID, it is essential to measure relevant patient reported outcomes (PROs). The aim of this study is to provide an overview of PROs used for individuals with GID, laying the groundwork for a future generic core PRO set for GID.
methodsTo identify PROs used for individuals with GID, results of two literature reviews were integrated; (1) PROs extracted from a scoping review on outcomes in clinical trials, and (2) PROs identified from a scoping review on core outcome sets (COSs) for specific GIDs through a search in MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO, Embase, and the COMET database. Descriptive analyses were performed.
resultsIn the first scoping review, 66 different PROs were identified. In the second scoping review, 22 different PROs were identified. After integrating PROs, 18 unique PROs remained, which were classified into a conceptual framework. Most frequently reported PROs were quality of life, perceived health, cognitive functioning, anxiety/stress, and depressive symptoms.
conclusionThis study provides an overview of PROs used for individuals with GID. These results will assist in developing a generic core PRO set for GID, to harmonize PROs used in care and research.
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.