Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Mar;28(3):567-592.
doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-2016-z. Epub 2018 Oct 3.

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)

S Ishaque  1 , J Karnon  2 , G Chen  3 , R Nair  4 , A B Salter  2
Affiliations

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)

S Ishaque et al. Qual Life Res. 2019 Mar.

Abstract

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) could play an important role in identifying patients' needs and goals in clinical encounters, improving communication and decision-making with clinicians, while making care more patient-centred. Comprehensive evidence that PROMS are an effective intervention is lacking in single randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods: A systematic search was performed using controlled vocabulary related to the terms: clinical care setting and patient-reported outcome. English language studies were included if they were a RCT with a PROM as an intervention in a patient population. Included studies were analysed and their methodologic quality was appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016034182).

Results: Of 4302 articles initially identified, 115 underwent full-text review resulting in 22 studies reporting on 25 comparisons. The majority of included studies were conducted in USA (11), among cancer patients (11), with adult participants only (20). Statistically significant and robust improvements were reported in the pre-specified outcomes of the process of care (2) and health care (3). Additionally, five, eight and three statistically significant but possibly non-robust findings were reported in the process of care, health and patient satisfaction outcomes, respectively.

Conclusions: Overall, studies that compared PROM to standard care either reported a positive effect or were not powered to find pre-specified differences. There is justification for the use of a PROM as part of standard care, but further adequately powered studies on their use in different contexts are necessary for a more comprehensive evidence base.

Keywords: Clinical care; HRQL; HRQoL; Health-related quality of life; PROMs; Patient outcomes; Patient-reported outcome measures; Patient-reported outcomes; QOL; Quality of life.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. J Eval Clin Pract. 1999 Nov;5(4):401-16 - PubMed
    1. Med Care. 2000 Feb;38(2):175-86 - PubMed
    1. Fam Pract. 2001 Feb;18(1):78-83 - PubMed
    1. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000 Nov;18(5):419-23 - PubMed
    1. J Clin Oncol. 2001 Nov 1;19(21):4117-25 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources