Cited by 362Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeHealth Education and ValidationStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

The importance of patient-reported outcomes: a call for their comprehensive integration in cardiovascular clinical trials

Open access
Anker, Stefan D., Agewall, Stefan, Borggrefe, Martin, Calvert, Melanie, Jaime Caro, J., Cowie, Martin R., Ford, Ian, Paty, Jean A. +5 more·2014·European Heart Journal

Abstract

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), or patient perceived health status, are reported directly by the patient and are powerful tools to inform patients, clinicians, and policy-makers about morbidity and 'patient suffering', especially in chronic diseases. Patient-reported outcomes provide information on the patient experience and can be the target of therapeutic intervention. Patient-reported outcomes can improve the quality of patient care by creating a holistic approach to clinical decision-making; however, PROs are not routinely used as key outcome measures in major cardiovascular clinical trials. Thus, limited information is available on the impact of cardiovascular therapeutics on PROs to guide patient-level clinical decision-making or policy-level decision-making. Cardiovascular clinical research should shift its focus to include PROs when evaluating the efficacy of therapeutic interventions, and PRO assessments should be scientifically rigorous. The European Society of Cardiology and other professional societies can take action to influence the uptake of PRO data in the research and clinical communities. This process of integrating PRO data into comprehensive efficacy evaluations will ultimately improve the quality of care for patients across the spectrum of cardiovascular disease.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu205

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Curran D, Molenberghs G, Fayers PM, Machin D. Incomplete quality of life data in randomized trials: missing forms. Stat Med 1998;17:697 -709.
  2. Wiklund I, Swedberg K. Some methodological problems in analyzing quality of life data in severe congestive heart failure patients. J Clin Res Pharmacoepidemiol 1991; 5:265-273.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Anker, S. D., Agewall, S., Borggrefe, M., Calvert, M., Jaime Caro, J., Cowie, M. R., Ford, I., Paty, J. A., Riley, J. P., Swedberg, K., Tavazzi, L., Wiklund, I., & Kirchhof, P.
Affiliations
  • Universitätsmedizin Göttingen (DE)
  • Oslo University Hospital (NO)
  • German Centre for Cardiovascular Research (DE)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
  • Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • Maria Cecilia Hospital (IT)
  • United BioSource Corporation (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • National Health Service (GB)
Corresponding author
Anker, Stefan D.
Venue
European Heart Journal
Published
2014-06-05
Volume
35
Issue
30
Pages
2001-2009
ISSN
  • 0195-668X (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-9645
OpenAlex
W1981551890
Cited by
362
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
8.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • European Heart Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
  • GRO (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Pfizer
  • Bayer HealthCare
  • European Society of Cardiology
  • Servier
  • Novartis Pharma
  • Medical Research Council (MR/K025643/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
patient-reported outcomes, cardiovascular clinical trials, health-related quality of life, patient experience, outcome measures, cardiovascular therapeutics, clinical decision-making, chronic cardiovascular disease, European Society of Cardiology
MeSH terms
Cardiology, Cardiovascular Diseases, Clinical Trials as Topic, Data Collection, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Europe, Humans, Insurance, Health, Reimbursement, Terminology as Topic, Quality of Life, Societies, Medical, Organizational Policy, Information Dissemination, Patient Outcome Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review