ライフサイエンスコーパス: PROM

1 PROM identified KO phenotypes with accuracies as high as

2 PROM introduces probabilities to represent gene states a

3 PROM properties (target population, domains, recall peri

4 PROM rate was 4%.

5 PROMs are validated questionnaires that assess the sympt

6 PROMs demonstrated best ability to accurately assess CIP

7 PROMs on health-related and vision-related quality of li

8 PROMs uptake and awareness is increasing in reconstructi

9 PROMs were classified into 3 levels of recommendations:

10 PROMs were summarized along a continuum of validation us

11 At least 1 PROM was used in 53% of trials (110) included; PROM use

12 sified into 3 levels of recommendations: (1) PROM recommended for use; (2) PROM requires further vali

13 uding 8 developmental studies (describing 11 PROMs) and 7 validation studies.

14 A total of 15 PROMs validated for use in adult patients with CRS were

15 In total, 15 PROMs (7 obstetric specific and 8 non-obstetric specific

16 Only 17 PROMs (15%) had melanoma-specific validation data availa

17 endations: (1) PROM recommended for use; (2) PROM requires further validation; and (3) PROM not recom

18 Among 10 264 postpartum recovery studies, 27 PROMs were identified.

19 [n = 27]) or disease-specific (14% [n = 28]) PROM was included in the RCTs analyzed.

20 2) PROM requires further validation; and (3) PROM not recommended for use.

21 s a primary or secondary outcome, of which 4 PROM results (1.8%) were interpreted using an empiricall

22 Similarly, for dyspigmentation, 4 PROMs and 8 ClinROMs were identified, but no validated P

23 Internal consistency was reported for 5 PROMs with sufficient quality.

24 For scars, 7 PROMs and 18 ClinROMs were used, with most being unvalid

25 ement property, rated to be sufficient for 8 PROMs.

26 ations were informed by studies evaluating a PROM as an outcome.

27 Only 7% of trials (14) included a PROM as a primary outcome measure.

28 nuary 2025 including any studies that used a PROM to evaluate outcomes of patients with melanoma publ

29 Four-point Likert responses across PROMs, expert panel assessment, and BCCT.core evaluation

30 In addition, PROMs were rarely used as a primary outcome measure, and

31 blications illustrate the need to administer PROMs at a postoperative interval relevant to the antici

32 All PROMs were developed based on adult individuals.

33 measurement properties were lacking for all PROMs; further research investigating the quality of rem

34 Content validity was sufficient in all PROMs.

35 th outcomes in the intervention group on all PROMs except the EQ-5D-5L among patients with hip replac

36 active and passive range of motion (AROM and PROM), muscle strength, limb edema, and pain.

37 lity of the PROM, engaging participants, and PROM complexity.

38 [EQ-5D] and 36-item Short Form [SF-36]) and PROMs specific to glaucoma (15-item Glaucoma Quality of

39 here was no correlation between activity and PROMs, but a strong correlation with depression.

40 investigated the association between ADI and PROMs.

41 Correlations between the anchors and PROMs were frequently not determined (39 of 84; 46.4%).

42 rol groups received the standard of care and PROMs at hospital admission, discharge, and 12 months af

43 there was a narrow spectrum of ClinROMs and PROMs with limited validity for the measurement of DAEs

44 of health deterioration were documented, and PROMs were completed for 251 (78.2%) of these events.

45 ically significant findings were limited and PROMs' intervention effect sizes were predominantly smal

46 eoperation, operative time, dural tears, and PROMs did not differ significantly.

47 key terms: ["chronic" AND "*sinusitis"] AND [PROM OR patient reported outcome measure* OR quality of

48 include uncertainty in selecting appropriate PROMs, concerns about resources limitations, patient bur

49 g pentoxifylline demonstrated improved AROM, PROM, and muscle strength and decreased limb edema and p

50 esults can be used to develop evidence-based PROM implementation initiatives for gender-affirming car

51 e instruments were single-item symptom-based PROMs (PRO measures for eyebrow, eyelash, nail appearanc

52 ata Distress, AAPPO, and all 5 symptom-based PROMs) featured very good development design.

53 emonstrates the potential of biopsychosocial PROM information to make substantial contributions to on

54 AS) questionnaire was developed, directed by PROM developing guidelines.

55 d discretionary recommendations supported by PROMs.

56 ROM implementation in gender-affirming care, PROM implementation was inconsistent and did not follow

57 view of 188 articles, the top 100 most-cited PROM development and validation publications, resulting

58 ortant difference (MID) use to contextualize PROM results and percentage of strong and discretionary

59 Future CRS PROMs will need to incorporate clinical domains that ass

60 management of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), PROMs will play an essential role in informing and tailo

61 A total of 4410 daily PROMs from 7082 therapy days for 40 children (35 childre

62 riginal articles of (2) a formally developed PROM or ad hoc instrument administered for gender-affirm

63 A total of 205 different PROMs were used in gender-affirming care.

64 For each distinctive PROM, quality of evidence was graded by measurement prop

65 The quality of each PROM was assessed and reported using standardized criter

66 Psychometric measurement properties of each PROM were rated according to COSMIN criteria.

67 Establishing an effective PROMs program requires an understanding of the surgeon's

68 ntervention of remotely delivered electronic PROM (ePROM) symptom surveillance and EHR-facilitated co

69 Only four clinical investigations evaluated PROMs and reported a modest beneficial impact of the use

70 Correlations between subscales and existing PROMs (Voice-Related Quality of Life, Eating Assessment

71 different across known quartiles of existing PROMs.

72 Few PROMs had studies for responsiveness.

73 tacles, different subspecialty surgeons find PROMs to be valuable in different settings, depending on

74 Based on established criteria for PROM responsiveness, 6 of 15 disease-specific PROMs demo

75 ative risks and 95% confidence intervals for PROM per each interquartile-range increase in pollutants

76 hatase PPM-1.D/Wip1 as crucial substrate for PROM-1.

77 A total of 13 of 84 MIDs (15.5%) for PROMs displayed acceptable credibility.

78 d, and 84 different MIDs were identified for PROMs.

79 scoping review, only a minority of MIDs for PROMs demonstrated sufficient credibility in dermatology

80 In reporting MCID and SCB values for PROMs following the treatment of knee OA with a combinat

81 GAL-9, P = 0.02), but not on general health PROMs (EQ-5D, P = 0.62; EQ-5D visual analog scale, P = 0

82 Patients completed general health PROMs (European Quality of Life in 5 Dimensions [EQ-5D]

83 se PROMs is critical to determine which HRQL PROMs could be recommended for use.

84 fic, dermatology-specific, and generic HRQoL PROMs is required to recommend their use.

85 ific, dermatology-specific, or generic HRQoL PROMs were included.

86 A total of 39 (37%) of the identified PROMs had an associated MCID.

87 ric measurement properties of the identified PROMs.

88 ith impaired AROM and 19 of 22 with impaired PROM improved; 11 of 19 patients with muscle weakness sh

89 ated for gender-affirming care, implementing PROMs able to be deployed online or in person, implement

90 er clinical areas interested in implementing PROMs.

91 e deployed online or in person, implementing PROMs that are shorter and reduce patient burden, engagi

92 Barriers to implementing PROMs in trials include uncertainty in selecting appropr

93 (FDA), an ES condition, and three important PROMs.

94 Importantly, PROM represents the successful integration of a top-down

95 Average change in PROMs on health-related and vision-related quality of li

96 to understand how surgeons perceive value in PROMs.

97 ased on the overall quality of each included PROM.

98 ed for each measurement property of included PROMs.

99 hout limb-threatening ischemia that included PROMs and had sample sizes >=25.

100 hout limb-threatening ischemia that included PROMs and had sample sizes 25.

101 guidelines were used to assess the included PROMs.

102 OM was used in 53% of trials (110) included; PROM use was more common in rosacea RCTs (67% [n = 29])

103 the first VH-specific, stakeholder-informed PROM.

104 consistency was high in the overall 22-item PROM and psychosocial, swallow, and voice subscales (Cro

105 ish-speaking individuals, a Spanish-language PROM for trust in pregnancy care clinician had initial v

106 mains, recall period, development language), PROM development and pilot studies, content validity (re

107 odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD); PROMs were additionally examined with a common-effect mo

108 m Bank) were all greater than 0.69, and mean PROM subscale scores were significantly different across

109 ugh remote patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) monitoring has shown promising results in cancer c

110 ding which patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) should be used to screen for this complex, multidi

111 Patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) surveillance and collaborative care improve cancer

112 OL using a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM).

113 rnia (VH) patient-reported outcomes measure (PROM).

114 ures [Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement (PROM) Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form (KDQoL-S

115 tiple patient-reported outcomes measurement (PROM) tools is recommended to capture long-term degree o

116 Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are emerging as an important component of adult c

117 Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) were assessed.

118 Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) allow clinicians and researchers to assess health

119 nical and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and case mix were identified through benchmark an

120 Although patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are a valuable tool to capture the patient perspe

121 Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly used to estimate disability of patie

122 Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are health outcomes directly reported by the pati

123 Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in melanoma research and to

124 Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are now recognised as the most appropriate instru

125 proposing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as digital biomarkers that can be easily used for

126 Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) capture how patients feel and function, including

127 Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) come directly from the patient, without clinician

128 (HES) and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) databases were linked to the NJR to investigate c

129 Existing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) evaluating outpatient postpartum recovery lack co

130 Multiple patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for health-related quality of life (HRQL) exist f

131 Multiple patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for health-related quality of life (HRQoL) exist

132 re are no patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for trust in their clinician that have been devel

133 ic use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has been advocated as an effective way to standar

134 Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become crucial in assessing cataract surgery

135 Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have, therefore, become an important tool for und

136 n affects patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in HNC survivors.

137 Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) play a crucial role in capturing the full impact

138 Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) studies for H-Wave device stimulation (HWDS) for

139 ed set of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that can be readily integrated into the dermatolo

140 ROMs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that evaluate concepts specific to mucocutaneous

141 terest in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to inform improvements in health care delivery.

142 ROMs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in assessing and treating AA, the results of

143 sures and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) were recorded.

144 operative patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) were used to build a predictive model.

145 e events, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and cost-effectiveness.

146 ications, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and hospital length of stay (LOS).

147 Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), such as the Western Ontario and McMaster Univers

148 tation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

149 gain, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

150 ence, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

151 ponses on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; secondary outcome measure) differ between patient

152 collects patient reported outcomes measures (PROMs) assessing depression, (hypo)mania, anxiety, and f

153 n-related quality of life outcomes measures (PROMs).

154 fety, and patient-reported outcome measures [PROMs]) were extracted and critically analyzed.

155 ASER) causes premature rupture of membranes (PROM) in 10% to 20% of pregnancies.

156 Premature rupture of membranes (PROM) is a major factor that predisposes women to preter

157 Preterm premature rupture of membranes (PROM) is the leading identifiable predisposing factor fo

158 or (PTL), or premature rupture of membranes (PROM).

159 stillbirth; premature rupture of membranes (PROM).

160 (defined as prelabour rupture of membranes [PROM], preterm <37 weeks PROM, and prolonged ROM) had a

161 the Probabilistic Regulation of Metabolism (PROM) framework.

162 Probabilistic Regulation Of Metabolism (PROM) provides a partial solution, but it does not incor

163 lled probabilistic regulation of metabolism (PROM) that achieves this synthesis and enables straightf

164 laboration and population health monitoring, PROMs have delivered substantial improvements beyond pro

165 met or exceeded an SBC value for one or more PROMs.

166 eve similar STS predicted risk of mortality (PROM) distribution to the trial participants.

167 edian (IQR) STS predicted risk of mortality (PROM) was 3.3% (2.0%-5.3%).

168 mortality (STS Predicted Risk of Mortality [PROM]) of 7% to 6% and transcatheter aortic valve replac

169 ematic review of barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation in gender-affirming care, PROM imple

170 Key enablers of PROM implementation included using PROMs validated for g

171 Identifying barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation is needed to develop an evidence-bas

172 crucial for the continued implementation of PROM instruments in prostate cancer pathways.

173 This review examined whether inclusion of PROM in routine clinical practice is associated with imp

174 de were associated with an increased risk of PROM (for carbon monoxide, relative risk (RR) = 1.09, 95

175 Ozone exposure increased the risk of PROM on the day of delivery (RR = 1.06, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.

176 61 participants addressed the association of PROMs with outcomes considered important to patients.

177 Correlations of PROMs with outcome satisfaction were determined for the

178 intraindividual standard deviation (s.d.) of PROMs over one-year rolling windows and stratified into

179 dressed before the routine implementation of PROMs is achieved.

180 a primary outcome measure, and inclusion of PROMs has not increased substantially over the past 10 y

181 Rhinology had the greatest number of PROMs with an associated MCID (16 of 24, 66%), and pedia

182 Overall, outcomes of PROMs are seldom used in ophthalmology CPGs published by

183 nderstanding of the surgeon's perspective of PROMs.

184 ew was to identify and assess the quality of PROMs being used for adults with CRS.

185 nce from this review can inform selection of PROMs aligned with scientific and clinical goals, given

186 m severity estimates and inconsistent use of PROMs (different measures and time points) across the in

187 entation obstacles, and inappropriate use of PROMs as a performance metric, with concerns regarding i

188 fy recent publications describing the use of PROMs following reconstructive urological surgery.

189 Increasing use of PROMs in RCTs can ensure that the patient's perspective

190 nt perspective, little is known about use of PROMs in RCTs on acne and rosacea.

191 Despite the increasing support for use of PROMs in the literature, there is limited uptake amongst

192 The routine use of PROMs increases the frequency of discussion of patient o

193 e study to understand the perceived value of PROMs from the perspective of surgeons in various subspe

194 standing of the surgeons' perceived value of PROMs.

195 cancer care, there is a lack of research on PROM monitoring in orthopedics.

196 Average percentage change on PROMs was similar for patients in both arms of the trial

197 Percentage changes between measurement on PROMs were calculated for each patient and compared betw

198 AAPPO was also the only PROM assessed for test-retest reliability, which was jud

199 AAPPO was the only PROM with high-quality evidence of sufficient structural

200 defect predictions compared to the original PROM MTB model, and it can successfully predict growth d

201 y, complications, patient reported outcomes (PROMs), cost-effectiveness, and budget impact.

202 IDREAM consistently outperformed PROM using any of three popular yeast metabolic models a

203 n this cohort study of 1033 cancer patients, PROMs were the only measures to satisfy all 3 core measu

204 tus, obstructed labour; breech presentation; PROM, eclampsia/pre-eclampsia; gestation 33-36 weeks; ge

205 Based on prespecified PROM score thresholds, at these times, an automated aler

206 We found an increase in preterm PROM risk of up to 50% (95% confidence interval: 4, 116)

207 = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.06, 1.25) but not preterm PROM.

208 on can potentially have an impact on preterm PROM, there is no available evidence on such an impact.

209 ht as a consequence of either PTL or preterm PROM.

210 ase-control analyses to estimate the preterm PROM risk associated with 1 interquartile-range increase

211 crom and PM2.5 light absorption with preterm PROM and gestational age at the rupture of membranes (RO

212 least 1 measurement property of the primary PROM were retrieved.

213 Random-effects models were primary; PROMs were also analyzed in a common-effect sensitivity

214 In addition, the intervention group received PROMs at 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery.

215 in July 2019 identified postpartum recovery PROMs and validation studies.

216 At least 1 skin-related PROM was infrequently utilized in systemic chemotherapy

217 % and transcatheter aortic valve replacement PROM (TVT PROM) of 4% to 3% (both p < 0.0001) from 2012

218 In this systematic review, PROMs used in melanoma research and clinical practice we

219 In this systematic review, PROMs were included in approximately one-half of acne an

220 SCF(PROM-1) comprises one branch and mediates a scheduled de

221 at the nuclear periphery, and programmed SCF(PROM-1)-mediated degradation of PPM-1.D liberates the ki

222 Seven PROMs (Scale of Alopecia Areata Distress, AAPPO, and all

223 e the rigor of the validation of AA-specific PROMs.

224 st provided the highest quality CRS-specific PROMs, whereas the EQ-5D provided the highest quality ge

225 ROM responsiveness, 6 of 15 disease-specific PROMs demonstrated excellent sensitivity to change.

226 Among disease-specific PROMs, 8 of 15 had excellent reliability as measured by

227 Among disease-specific PROMs, 8 of 15 had excellent reliability as measured by

228 nd progressing patients on glaucoma-specific PROMs (GQL-15, P = 0.02; GAL-9, P = 0.02), but not on ge

229 For generic (nondisease specific) PROMs, the European Quality of Life 5-Dimension and SF-3

230 al access (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.27-1.48), STS PROM score greater than 15% vs less than 8% (HR, 1.82; 9

231 -ring procedures were high risk, with an STS PROM for mitral valve replacement of 11%.

232 tion, 383 (202 TAVR and 181 SAVR) had an STS PROM of 7% or less (median [interquartile range]: TAVR,

233 nderwent an attempted implant and had an STS PROM of 7% or less.

234 opathy Questionnaire in patients with an STS PROM score of 7% or less.

235 tratified patients by the overall median STS PROM score (7%) and analyzed clinical outcomes and quali

236 s <3.3 g/dl, falls in the past 6 months, STS PROM score >7%, and severe (>/=5) Charlson comorbidity s

237 ic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM) alone is sufficient to define decreased risk, the

238 gh mean STS predicted risk of mortality (STS PROM) for surgical valve replacement (8.34%), were highl

239 ic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM) has trended downward in US TAVR trials and the STS

240 S Predicted Risk of Operative Mortality (STS PROM) score of 7.1%.

241 ic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM), and subjective criteria to assess patients' eligi

242 t increased surgical risk based on their STS PROM score and other risk factors.

243 bly with SAVR in high-risk patients with STS PROM scores traditionally considered intermediate risk.

244 of patients was 75.4 years, and the mean STS-PROM score was 2.3%.

245 e mean age was 79.1+/-4.8 years and mean STS-PROM score was 3.0%+/-1.7%.

246 39 (mean age 82.8 years [SD 4.1]; median STS-PROM score 3.5% [IQR 2.6-5.0]) were enrolled.

247 Median STS-PROM score 8.6%; median clinical follow-up 492 days (int

248 ic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) (<4% versus >/=4%), there was no statistically sig

249 ic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) category.

250 ic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM), LV-LAS remained significant (adjusted HR, 3.38 [9

251 ic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality [STS-PROM] score <4%) were included.

252 2015, 226 patients deemed extreme risk (STS-PROM [Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mor

253 ve value of the STS-PROM, increasing the STS-PROM C index from 0.64 to 0.71 (chi(2) = 29.9 vs 19.7, P

254 use improved the predictive value of the STS-PROM, increasing the STS-PROM C index from 0.64 to 0.71

255 1900 patients (mean age, 80.2+/-8 years; STS-PROM [Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Ope

256 In some studies, PROMs are associated with improved symptom control, incr

257 More research is required to support PROM cost-benefit in terms of patient safety, clinician

258 ience theory, model, or framework to support PROM deployment.

259 models contain many fewer interactions than PROM and yet produce significantly more accurate growth

260 are modalities graded AO outcomes worse than PROMs.

261 Surgeons endorsed that PROMs can be used to enhance clinical management, counse

262 es with evidence strength and quality of the PROM, engaging participants, and PROM complexity.

263 In this randomized clinical trial, the PROM-based monitoring intervention led to a small improv

264 ry Influence Network (EGRIN) models with the PROM framework to create enhanced metabolic-regulatory n

265 The PROMs used may not be sensitive enough to function as pr

266 ervational study was conducted analysing the PROMs recorded in the RayPro database (Rayner, Worthing,

267 Only 5%, with any of the PROMs used, showed complete response to MC-targeted trea

268 Most of the PROMs were developed for research purposes such as deter

269 ing, but the measurement properties of these PROMs among patients with a range of chronic skin diseas

270 l practice; however, the validation of these PROMs for use in melanoma populations is unknown.

271 ty and other measurement properties of these PROMs is critical to determine which HRQL PROMs could be

272 ty and other measurement properties of these PROMs.

273 (QoL) scores were correlated from the three PROMs and effect sizes were compared using analysis of n

274 Key barriers to PROM implementation included issues with evidence streng

275 I, 0.17-0.53; I2 = 86%) and the BCCT.core to PROM ratio of ORs was 0.28 (95% CrI, 0.13-0.59; I2 = 95%

276 cellent vs all other responses, the panel to PROM ratio of ORs was 0.30 (95% CrI, 0.17-0.53; I2 = 86%

277 on June 29, 2022, using keywords related to PROM development and validation studies in otolaryngolog

278 exposures merit further study in relation to PROM.

279 Obstacles to PROMs use include failure to generate actionable data, i

280 are, but little has been done with regard to PROMs for pediatric cancer care.

281 idation publications, resulting in 106 total PROMs, were chosen for review.

282 ment for measuring, quantifying and tracking PROMs in VH patients.

283 scatheter aortic valve replacement PROM (TVT PROM) of 4% to 3% (both p < 0.0001) from 2012 to 2015.

284 After validating the approach, we used PROM to build a genome-scale integrated metabolic-regula

285 in the development of CPGs, 221 (9.0%) used PROMs as a primary or secondary outcome, of which 4 PROM

286 ma-specific validation data of commonly used PROMs through psychometric evaluation studies to increas

287 od instability, as measured in commonly used PROMs, characterized the course of illness over time, co

288 By using PROM, we constructed an integrated regulatory-metabolic

289 ablers of PROM implementation included using PROMs validated for gender-affirming care, implementing

290 Most frequently utilized PROMs were the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI; 34

291 ty was assessed for each of the 10 validated PROMs identified.

292 were searched on July 1, 2019, for validated PROMs of postpartum depression, and an additional search

293 8 ClinROMs were identified, but no validated PROMs were identified.

294 Overall, the highest quality validated PROMs for adults with CRS were (1) the 22-item Sinonasal

295 CIPN was assessed via PROMs (European Organization for Research and Treatment

296 pture of membranes [PROM], preterm <37 weeks PROM, and prolonged ROM) had a 2.3 (95% CI 1.0-5.4) time

297 Yet, the question of whether PROMs can lead to actual improvements in the quality of

298 However, the extent to which PROMs are ultimately informing patient management recomm

299 m birth, but evidence of a relationship with PROM is sparse.

300 IPANTS: This single-center cohort study with PROMs implemented in daily clinical routine was conducte