Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Pediatric Non-Malignant Hematology: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires completed by patients or caregivers without influence by health care professionals. As such, PROMs show subjective health experiences, enhance the clinical information available to providers, and inform clinical action. The objective of this systematic review is to identify and list which validated PROMs have been used to monitor health-related quality of life in pediatric patients with nonmalignant hematology (hemophilia, immune thrombocytopenia, sickle cell disease, and thalassemia). Databases (MEDLINE, Embase, HaPI, CINAHL, and PsycTESTS) were searched to identify publications that validated or used PROMs as an outcome measure in the 4 disease groups. Overall, 209 articles met the inclusion criteria, identifying 113 PROMs. Of the 113 identified PROMs, 95 are generic and can be used in multiple disease groups. The Pediatric Quality of Life Generic Core Scales was the most frequently used generic PROM (68 studies). The 18 remaining PROMs were disease specific. The results of this review, together with the COSMIN tool for selecting outcome measures, will allow clinicians to evaluate the PROMs that are best suited to their patient population. In addition, the focus groups are currently being conducted with patients, parents, and clinicians to determine the optimal use of PROMs in the clinical environment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".