Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41543940›Full record

ReviewTransplantation2026

Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: Current use, Challenges, and Recommendations for Future use.

Silke E de Boer, Coby Annema, Tim J Knobbe, Stephan J L Bakker, Stefan P Berger, Yvette Meuleman, Jan Stephan F Sanders

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Transplantation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Silke E de BoerDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Coby AnnemaDepartment of Health Sciences, Section of Nursing Science, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Tim J KnobbeDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Stephan J L BakkerDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Stefan P BergerDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Yvette MeulemanDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Jan Stephan F SandersDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Worldwide, the number of patients receiving solid organ transplantation each year is increasing. In recent years, there has been growing recognition of the need to understand how these additional life years are experienced and valued by recipients. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs)-such as symptoms, functioning, and health-related quality of life-provide direct insight into health from the patient's perspective and are increasingly acknowledged as key outcomes in both research and clinical care. Different patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been developed in the field of transplantation. However, their current use in both clinical care and research in solid organ transplant recipients remains inconsistent and limited. This narrative review summarizes the current state of PRO and PROM use in solid organ transplantation across different organs and settings, highlights recent initiatives and ongoing implementation efforts, and outlines challenges in PROM selection, application and interpretation. Although the field of kidney transplantation is currently leading in the development and implementation of PROM initiatives, comparable efforts in liver, lung, and heart transplantation remain limited, resulting in slow and heterogeneous progress across organ domains. To support broader adoption, we propose a stepwise roadmap for PROM implementation in transplantation. A more systematic and thoughtful integration of PROs and PROMs holds potential to improve shared decision-making, generate evidence that aligns more closely with the priorities of transplant recipients, and ultimately support more meaningful clinical decisions and improved outcomes for transplant recipients.

Indexed as

Organ TransplantationPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeTransplant RecipientsHumansTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID41543940
PMCPMC12908644

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.