Cited by 244Psychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeHealth Education and Validation

Advances in Patient Reported Outcomes: The NIH PROMIS Measures

Open access
Broderick, Joan, DeWit, Esi Morgan, Rothrock, Nan, Crane, Paul, Forrest, Christopher B.·2013·eGEMs (Generating Evidence & Methods to improve patient outcomes)

Abstract

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are questionnaire measures of patients’ symptoms, functioning, and health-related quality of life. They are designed to provide important clinical information that generally cannot be captured with objective medical testing. Recent legislative developments in the United States support greater efforts to include patients’ reports of health experience to evaluate treatment outcomes, engage in shared decision-making, and prioritize the focus of treatment. PROs have garnered increased attention by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for evaluating drugs and medical devices. Recent calls for comparative effectiveness research favor inclusion of PROs. In 2004, the National Institutes of Health launched a research initiative to improve the clinical research enterprise by developing state-of-the-art PROs. The NIH Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement System (PROMIS) and Assessment Center are the products of that initiative. Adult, pediatric, and parent-proxy item banks have been developed using contemporary psychometric methods, yielding rapid, accurate measurement. PROMIS currently provides tools for assessing physical, mental, and social health using short-form and computer adaptive testing methods. The PROMIS tools are being adopted for use in clinical trials and translational research. They are also being introduced in clinical medicine to assess a broad range of disease outcomes. There is potential for use of PROs to improve quality of care and disease outcomes, to provide patient-centered assessment for comparative effectiveness research, and to enable a common metric for tracking outcomes across providers and medical systems.

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 · 10.13063/2327-9214.1015

Cites

53 of 53 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

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

1 of the 54 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Broderick, J., DeWit, E. M., Rothrock, N., Crane, P., & Forrest, C. B.
Affiliations
  • Stony Brook University (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
Venue
eGEMs (Generating Evidence & Methods to improve patient outcomes)
Published
2013-02-08
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
12
ISSN
2327-9214 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1908118904
Cited by
244
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 10
FWCI
11.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • eGEMs (Generating Evidence & Methods to improve patient outcomes) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (U01AR057956)
  • Northwestern University (U54AR057951, U54AR057943, U01AR052177)
  • University of Washington (U01AR052171, U01AR057954)
  • University of Pittsburgh (U01AR052155)
  • Georgetown University (U01AR057971)
  • Australian Government
  • National Institutes of Health (5u01ar057940-04, U01AR057940)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (U01AR057936)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (U01AR052181)
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (U01AR052171, U01AR057956, U01AR057967, U01AR052186, U01-AR-057940, U01AR057936, U54AR057943, U01AR057929, U01AR052170, U01AR052158, U01AR052155, U01AR052177, U01AR052181, U01AR057971, U01AR057954, U01AR057948, U54AR057926, U54AR057951)
  • Common Fund
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
patient-reported outcomes, PROMIS, item bank, computerized adaptive testing, health-related quality of life, physical function, mental health, social health, shared decision-making, comparative effectiveness research, patient-centered outcomes, outcome measurement

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