ReviewPatient preference and adherence2026
Eighteen Years of Measuring Treatment Satisfaction in Clinical Research: A Scoping Review of Instruments and Contexts of Use.
Review in Patient preference and adherence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessment of Patient Satisfaction with TB Care Services in Southern Afghanistan.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Despite the widespread use of Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) instruments to assess treatment satisfaction in clinical trials and academic research, a comprehensive review mapping these tools across therapeutic areas has been lacking. This scoping review addresses this gap by examining the application of PRO instruments over the past 18 years. Methods: Following Arksey and O'Malley's framework and mixed-method principles, we searched Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid EMBASE from 2004 to June 2022. Data extraction was structured according to review objectives and key domains. Results: Of 3,497 articles retrieved, 1,398 studies reported using PRO instruments for treatment satisfaction. The most common therapeutic areas were endocrine, nutrition, and metabolic disorders, followed by mental and behavioral conditions. Most studies were conducted in academic settings (53.1%) or Phase III clinical trials (27.5%). The Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) was the most frequently used generic instrument, while the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) was the leading disease-specific tool. Many instruments lacked psychometric validation, limiting comparability. Conclusion: PRO instruments for treatment satisfaction are primarily used in chronic disease contexts. Their widespread adoption underscores the need for validated tools to ensure robust, comparable data and support better patient outcomes.
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.