SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
What patient reported outcome measures are used in clinical trials in hip fracture? A systematic mapping review.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to assess treatment effectiveness in various domains from the patients' perspective. This systematic review aimed to identify what PROMs have been used in hip fracture clinical trials, whether they are used as the primary outcome, whether validity evidence is referenced and how their use has changed over time.
methodsStudies obtained from PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science published between 01/01/2010 and 29/09/2025 were assessed. Eligible studies were controlled trials on hip fracture interventions in adult populations published in English. We checked the reference for validity evidence of PROMs used in included studies. Characteristics of each study were extracted, and PROMs usage was summarised by year of publication.
resultsA total of 28 different PROMs were used in 189 trials, with each covering different outcome domains. The most used PROMs were Harris hip score, EuroQoL-5D and pain visual analogue scale. A predominant proportion of studies (n = 162, 85.7%) utilised at least one PROMs, including 65 studies used multiple PROMs. There is an increasing trend of PROMs usage in trials and the number of papers using a PROM as a primary outcome over time. However, 95 studies did not reference any validity evidence for PROMs used.
conclusionThe frequent usage of PROMs in trials, and often as a primary outcome, suggests patient perspective is valued when evaluating hip fracture intervention. However, the lack of a single PROM covering all outcome domains necessitates using more than one PROMs in the included trials. A more comprehensive PROM or a core set of PROMs that measures all patient-related outcomes would achieve a holistic assessment and the ability to make direct comparisons between different interventions.
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.