Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 205

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessment of patient‐reported outcomes in clinical trials: the example of health‐related quality of life

Wiklund, Ingela·2004·Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology

Abstract

As the patient is the primary recipient of treatment, there is a need to recognize and value the patient's perception of change in response to treatment in clinical trials. A new outcomes classification, patient‐reported outcomes (PROs), has been proposed by regulators. The PROs are used as an umbrella term and include, for example measures of subjective symptoms, health‐related quality of life (HRQL) and treatment satisfaction. In this sense, the PROs are unique and complementary indicators of disease activity as well as of treatment efficacy. Frequently, pharmaceutical companies desire to include PRO benefits in the product label in order to reach a broad range of customers, including prescribers as well as patients. Therefore such information must be based on results that are scientifically valid. The measurement strategy, i.e. the thinking about and decision‐making related to PRO and HRQL evaluations, needs to be explicit for clinical trials. First of all it is necessary to specify and provide the rationale for measuring the PROs. Similarly, the reason for selecting particular instruments should be stated and, for the selected instruments, the psychometric evidence should be summarized. The key PRO domains must be prespecified and evidence of their importance to patients should be provided. The research question under study and potential claims need to be clearly delineated. Hence, instrument selection is a key initial step for planning successful and scientifically adequate clinical trials intended to support labelling and promotional claims of PRO benefits to patients. The scientific criteria and design issues of clinical trials are the same for clinical and PRO endpoints. However, important issues of particular relevance to PRO assessments, such as missing values, multiple outcomes, and the statistical analysis, require careful attention. The thinking and planning involved in developing the PRO component of the clinical trial need to be articulated. Successful evaluation of PROs in clinical trials relies on careful planning provided the treatment shows sufficient effectiveness.

Overview

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 · 10.1111/j.1472-8206.2004.00234.x

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 205

Metadata

Authors
Wiklund, I.
Venue
Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-02-09
Volume
18
Issue
3
Pages
351-363
ISSN
  • 0767-3981 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-8206
OpenAlex
W1985132948
Cited by
205
References
5
FWCI
26.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessment of patient‐reported outcomes in clinical trials: the example of health‐related quality of life. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1472-8206.2004.00234.x
The paper
Wiklund, I. (2004). Assessment of patient‐reported outcomes in clinical trials: the example of health‐related quality of life. Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-8206.2004.00234.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.