A Narrative Literature Review of Bias in Collecting Patient Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMs)

Overview

Journal Int J Environ Res Public Health

Publisher MDPI

Specialties Environmental Health
Public Health

Date 2021 Dec 10

PMID 34886170

Citations 24

Authors

Michela Luciana Luisa Zini

Giuseppe Banfi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

There is a growing interest in the collection and use of patient reported outcomes because they not only provide clinicians with crucial information, but can also be used for economic evaluation and enable public health decisions. During the collection phase of PROMs, there are several factors that can potentially bias the analysis of PROM data. It is crucial that the collected data are reliable and comparable. The aim of this paper was to analyze the type of bias that have already been taken into consideration in the literature. A literature review was conducted by the authors searching on PubMed database, after the selection process, 24 studies were included in this review, mostly regarding orthopedics. Seven types of bias were identified: Non-response bias, collection method related bias, fatigue bias, timing bias, language bias, proxy response bias, and recall bias. Regarding fatigue bias and timing bias, only one study was found; for non-response bias, collection mode related bias, and recall bias, no agreement was found between studies. For these reasons, further research on this subject is needed in order to assess each bias type in relation to each medical specialty, and therefore find correction methods for reliable and comparable data for analysis.

Citing Articles

Feasibility of implementing a codesigned patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) collection system for older adults in acute and sub-acute hospital settings.

Snowdon D, Marsh L, Srikanth V, Beare R, Barnden R, Parker E Qual Life Res. 2025; .

PMID: 40019679 DOI: 10.1007/s11136-025-03931-0.

Predictors of survey non-response two years after hip arthroscopy: Results from an institutional prospective registry.

Ventimiglia D, Clark Z, Koshar A, McCurdy M, Lutz A, Rocca M J Orthop. 2025; 68:45-50.

PMID: 40007524 PMC: 11849199. DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2025.02.005.

Medication adherence of patients with peripheral arterial disease to antithrombotic therapy: a systematic review.

Wegerif E, Mol B, Unlu C, de Borst G BMJ Open. 2025; 15(2):e085056.

PMID: 39987003 PMC: 11877208. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-085056.

Patient Recruitment Characteristics for Wearable-Sensor-Based Outcome Assessment in Trauma Surgery.

Braun B, Hofmann K, Meierhofer C, Menger M, Maisenbacher T, Vogel C J Clin Med. 2025; 14(3).

PMID: 39941475 PMC: 11818076. DOI: 10.3390/jcm14030805.

Gibbs N, Ochalek J, Napit I, Shrestha D, Goncalves P, Lilford R PLoS One. 2025; 20(2):e0315944.

PMID: 39932933 PMC: 11813150. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0315944.

References

Aleem I, Currier B, Yaszemski M, Poppendeck H, Huddleston P, Eck J . Do Cervical Spine Surgery Patients Recall Their Preoperative Status?: A Cohort Study of Recall Bias in Patient-reported Outcomes. Clin Spine Surg. 2018; 31(10):E481-E487. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000726. View

Alvarez-Nebreda M, Heng M, Rosner B, McTague M, Javedan H, Harris M . Reliability of Proxy-reported Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function and Pain Interference Responses for Elderly Patients With Musculoskeletal Injury. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018; 27(4):e156-e165. DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-17-00644. View

Weldring T, Smith S . Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Health Serv Insights. 2014; 6:61-8. PMC: 4089835. DOI: 10.4137/HSI.S11093. View

Polk A, Rasmussen J, Brorson S, Olsen B . Reliability of patient-reported functional outcome in a joint replacement registry. A comparison of primary responders and non-responders in the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry. Acta Orthop. 2013; 84(1):12-7. PMC: 3584596. DOI: 10.3109/17453674.2013.765622. View

Lapin B, Thompson N, Schuster A, Katzan I . Magnitude and Variability of Stroke Patient-Proxy Disagreement Across Multiple Health Domains. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020; 102(3):440-447. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2020.09.378. View

Schmier J, Halpern M . Patient recall and recall bias of health state and health status. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2009; 4(2):159-63. DOI: 10.1586/14737167.4.2.159. View

Imam M, Barke S, Stafford G, Parkin D, Field R . Loss to follow-up after total hip replacement: a source of bias in patient reported outcome measures and registry datasets?. Hip Int. 2014; 24(5):465-72. DOI: 10.5301/hipint.5000141. View

Pechon P, Butler K, Murphy G, Singer G . The perils of PROMs: question 5 of the Oxford Hip Score is ambiguous to 10% of English-speaking patients: a survey of 135 patients. Hip Int. 2018; 29(3):299-302. DOI: 10.1177/1120700018775317. View

Cabitza F, Dui L, Banfi G . PROs in the wild: Assessing the validity of patient reported outcomes in an electronic registry. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2019; 181:104837. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2019.01.009. View

10.

Cabitza F, Dui L . Collecting Patient Reported Outcomes in the Wild: Opportunities and Challenges. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2018; 247:36-40. View

11.

Aleem I, Duncan J, Ahmed A, Zarrabian M, Eck J, Rhee J . Do Lumbar Decompression and Fusion Patients Recall Their Preoperative Status?: A Cohort Study of Recall Bias in Patient-Reported Outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 42(2):128-134. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001682. View

12.

Hammarstedt J, Redmond J, Gupta A, Dunne K, Vemula S, Domb B . Survey mode influence on patient-reported outcome scores in orthopaedic surgery: telephone results may be positively biased. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015; 25(1):50-54. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-015-3802-6. View

13.

. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006; 4:79. PMC: 1629006. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-4-79. View

14.

Rutherford C, Costa D, Mercieca-Bebber R, Rice H, Gabb L, King M . Mode of administration does not cause bias in patient-reported outcome results: a meta-analysis. Qual Life Res. 2015; 25(3):559-74. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-015-1110-8. View

15.

Li M, Harris I, Lu Z . Differences in proxy-reported and patient-reported outcomes: assessing health and functional status among medicare beneficiaries. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015; 15:62. PMC: 4534114. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-015-0053-7. View

16.

Kwong E, Black N . Retrospectively patient-reported pre-event health status showed strong association and agreement with contemporaneous reports. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 81:22-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.09.002. View

17.

Neumann P, Araki S, Gutterman E . The use of proxy respondents in studies of older adults: lessons, challenges, and opportunities. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000; 48(12):1646-54. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb03877.x. View

18.

Sneeuw K, Sprangers M, Aaronson N . The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003; 55(11):1130-43. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(02)00479-1. View

19.

Schroder M, de Wispelaere M, Staartjes V . Are patient-reported outcome measures biased by method of follow-up? Evaluating paper-based and digital follow-up after lumbar fusion surgery. Spine J. 2018; 19(1):65-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.05.002. View

20.

Lindman I, Olsson H, Ohlin A, Hamrin Senorski E, Stalman A, Ayeni O . Loss to follow-up: initial non-responders do not differ from responders in terms of 2-year outcome in a hip arthroscopy registry. J Hip Preserv Surg. 2020; 7(2):281-287. PMC: 7605762. DOI: 10.1093/jhps/hnaa028. View