Poor quality patient reported outcome measures bias effect estimates in orthopaedic randomized studies
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 21, 2026

Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment
Published on: April 19, 2024
Joel J Gagnier1, Bradley C Johnston2
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Objectives:
The objective was to assess the potential for biased treatment effects associated with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of varying psychometric quality in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for rotator cuff disease (RCD).
Study Design And Setting:
We searched for RCTs published in the past 5 years (January 2011 to December 2016) in the top five 2015 impact factor orthopedic journals. We accepted RCTs including human participants with RCD, published in English, and using PROMs specific to RCD. We extracted data on study design, sample size, risk of bias for RCTs, quality of PROM used, estimates of effect, and associated measures of variance. PROMs were given numerical ratings of psychometric quality from a prior publication. Continuous measures of effect were transformed by dividing the effect estimate by the standard deviation. Multilevel linear regression analyses were performed to determine whether PROM quality was associated with the magnitude of effect.
Results:
Overall, we included 72 RCTs reporting 174 separate outcomes. Mean sample size was 66.8 (95% CI 62.30 to 71.27), mean risk of bias score across all studies was 7.00/10 (95% CI 6.72 to 7.29), psychometric quality summary scores ranged from -2 to 10, and the standardized mean effect estimate was 0.47 (95% CI -0.17 to 1.11). Regression revealed that higher-quality PROMs had smaller estimates of effect (β = -0.32; 95% CI -0.51 to -0.13; P = 0.001). We also found that a longer follow-up period predicted slightly increased effect estimates (β = 0.08; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.13; P = 0.007).
Conclusions:
PROMs with poor or unknown psychometric properties overestimate treatment effects in clinical research of RCD by 68.4% (β -0.32/standardized mean effect 0.47). To our knowledge, this is the first empirical evidence that variations in the quality of PROMs bias treatment effect estimates. Researchers and clinicians using data from PROMs must be cautious to explore the quality of that measure so as to not mislead decision-making resulting from biased outcomes.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Hindsight Biases
Bias in Epidemiological Studies
Confirmation Biases
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs
Bias
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...
Data Reporting and Recording

