ReviewRheumatology international2026
Patient-reported outcomes as markers and predictors of functional recovery in musculoskeletal rehabilitation.
Review in Rheumatology international, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are widely used in musculoskeletal rehabilitation to assess pain, physical function, disability, health-related quality of life, psychological status, and patient-perceived recovery. Although traditionally applied as outcome measures, PROMs may also provide prognostic information and contribute to prediction models of rehabilitation response. However, their dual role as both endpoints and predictors has not yet been sufficiently integrated within a unified methodological framework. This narrative review critically examines the role of PROMs in musculoskeletal rehabilitation, with particular emphasis on their use as endpoints of functional recovery, predictors of rehabilitation outcomes, longitudinal monitoring tools, and instruments supporting shared decision-making. A search of peer-reviewed literature was conducted across global databases, focusing on commonly used PROMs. The available evidence indicates that PROMs capture patient-centred domains that are not fully represented by objective clinical or performance-based measures. As endpoints, they permit evaluation of treatment effectiveness. As predictors, baseline and early-treatment PROMs may contribute to prognostic models, risk stratification, treatment matching, and identification of patients at risk of persistent disability or non-response. Their predictive value is influenced by measurement validity, construct overlap, baseline severity, regression to the mean, ceiling and floor effects, assessment timing, missing data, and validation strategy. The clinical utility of PROM-informed models depends on rigorous instrument selection, transparent modelling, calibration assessment, external validation, and adherence to recognised methodological and reporting standards. PROMs should be considered as potentially valuable components of personalised rehabilitation assessment and prognostic modelling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42550225What 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.