Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Registry-Based Studies of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: a Systematic Review

  • Diabetes Epidemiology (E Selvin and K Foti, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Diabetes Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient registries both play important roles in assessing patient outcomes. However, no study has examined the use of PROMs among registries involving patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Our objective is twofold: first, to review the range of PROMs used in registry-based studies of patients with T2DM; second, to describe associations between these PROMs, T2DM and its complications.

Recent Findings

The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) Diabetes Standard Set recommended routine usage of PROMs to assess psychological well-being, diabetes distress, and depression among patients with T2DM.

Summary

A wide variety of PROMs were used among the 15 studies included in this review. Quality of life, depressive symptoms and treatment adherence were the most common aspects of T2DM that utilised PROMs for assessment. Adoption of PROMs among registries of patients with T2DM remains uncommon, non-routine and with few that are validated before use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Black N. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ. 2013;346:f167. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f167.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Callahan LF. The history of patient-reported outcomes in rheumatology. Rheum Dis Clin N Am. 2016;42(2):205–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rdc.2016.01.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Froud R, Patel S, Rajendran D, Bright P, Bjørkli T, Buchbinder R, et al. A systematic review of outcome measures use, analytical approaches, reporting methods, and publication volume by year in low back pain trials published between 1980 and 2012: Respice, adspice, et prospice. PLoS One. 2016;11(10):e0164573-e. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164573.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Weldring T, Smith SMS. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Health Serv Insights. 2013;6:61–8. https://doi.org/10.4137/HSI.S11093.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Patrick, Donald L, Gordon H Guyatt, and Catherine Acquardro. Patient-Reported Outcomes. In: Cochrane Handbook For Systematic Reviews Of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011. https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/. Accessed 01 Sep 2019.

  6. Nelson EC, Eftimovska E, Lind C, Hager A, Wasson JH, Lindblad S. Patient reported outcome measures in practice. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2015;350:g7818. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. • Greenhalgh J, Dalkin S, Gooding K. Patient-reported outcome measures as a tool to support patients in raising or sharing concerns with clinicians. In: Functionality and feedback: a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures data to improve patient care. NIHR Journals Library: Southampton; 2017. This book chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the clinical importance and benefits of PROM utilization in a wide range of health settings.

    Google Scholar 

  8. EuroQol Research Foundation. Introduction. In: EQ-5D-3L User Guide: Basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-3L instrument. 2018. https://euroqol.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/EQ-5D-3L-User-Guide_version-6.0.pdf. Accessed 01 Sep 2019.

  9. Nelson EC, Dixon-Woods M, Batalden PB, Homa K, Van Citters AD, Morgan TS, et al. Patient focused registries can improve health, care, and science. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2016;354:i3319. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i3319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. National Academies of Sciences. The National Academies Collection: reports funded by National Institutes of Health. Real-World Evidence Generation and Evaluation of Therapeutics: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) Copyright 2017 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.; 2017.

  11. Gliklich RE, Dreyer NA, Leavy MB. Use of patient-reported outcomes in registries. Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: a user’s guide. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Prodinger B, Taylor P. Improving quality of care through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): expert interviews using the NHS PROMs Programme and the Swedish quality registers for knee and hip arthroplasty as examples. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):87. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-2898-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Breckenridge K, Bekker HL, Gibbons E, van der Veer SN, Abbott D, Briançon S, et al. How to routinely collect data on patient-reported outcome and experience measures in renal registries in Europe: an expert consensus meeting. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2015;30(10):1605–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfv209.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Zamora NV, Christensen R, Goel N, Klokker L, Lopez-Olivo MA, Kristensen LE, et al. Critical outcomes in longitudinal observational studies and registries in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an OMERACT Special Interest Group Report. J Rheumatol. 2017;44(12):1894–8. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.161108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Speight J, Reaney MD, Barnard KD. Not all roads lead to Rome-a review of quality of life measurement in adults with diabetes. Diabet Med. 2009;26(4):315–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2009.02682.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. NIH National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. Study quality assessment tools: quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools. Accessed 22 Aug 2019.

  18. Kikuchi Y, Iwase M, Fujii H, Ohkuma T, Kaizu S, Ide H, et al. Association of severe hypoglycemia with depressive symptoms in patients with type 2 diabetes: the Fukuoka Diabetes Registry. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2015;3(1):e000063. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2014-000063.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Tsujii S, Hayashino Y, Ishii H. Diabetes distress, but not depressive symptoms, is associated with glycaemic control among Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: Diabetes Distress and Care Registry at Tenri (DDCRT 1). Diabet Med. 2012;29(11):1451–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2012.03647.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rathmann WK, Kuß O, Anderson D, Busch S, Hahn M, Engelhard J, et al. Increased depression symptom score in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes patients. Psychiatry Res. 2018;261:259–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.12.091.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hayashino Y, Mashitani T, Tsujii S, Ishii H. Elevated levels of hs-CRP are associated with high prevalence of depression in japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: the Diabetes Distress and Care Registry at Tenri (DDCRT 6). Diabetes Care. 2014;37(9):2459–65. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc13-2312.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hayashino Y, Okamura S, Tsujii S, Ishii H. Association between diabetes distress and all-cause mortality in Japanese individuals with type 2 diabetes: a prospective cohort study (Diabetes Distress and Care Registry in Tenri [DDCRT 18]). Diabetologia. 2018;61(9):1978–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-018-4657-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fumagalli S, Said SA, Laroche C, Gabbai D, Boni S, Marchionni N, et al. Management and prognosis of atrial fibrillation in diabetic patients: an EORP-AF General Pilot Registry report. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother. 2018;4(3):172–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjcvp/pvx037.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hayashino Y, Tsujii S, Ishii H. Association of diabetes therapy-related quality of life and physical activity levels in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving medication therapy: the Diabetes Distress and Care Registry at Tenri (DDCRT 17). Acta Diabetol. 2018;55(2):165–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-017-1080-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mashitani T, Hayashino Y, Okamura S, Kitatani M, Furuya M, Iburi T, et al. Diabetes treatment-related quality of life is associated with levels of self-care activities in insulin injection among Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: Diabetes Distress and Care Registry at Tenri (DDCRT 8). Acta Diabetol. 2015;52(4):639–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-015-0725-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wasem JB, Bramlage P, Gitt AK, Binz C, Krekler M, Deeg E, et al. Co-morbidity but not dysglycaemia reduces quality of life in patients with type-2 diabetes treated with oral mono- or dual combination therapy--an analysis of the DiaRegis registry. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2013;12:47. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2840-12-47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. von Arx LBG, Gydesen H, Skovlund S. Treatment beliefs, health behaviors and their association with treatment outcome in type 2 diabetes. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2016;4(1):e000166. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2015-000166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mashitani TH, Hayashino Y, Okamura S, Kitatani M, Furuya M, Matsunaga S, et al. Patient-reported adherence to insulin regimen is associated with glycemic control among Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: Diabetes Distress and Care Registry at Tenri (DDCRT 3). Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2013;100(2):189–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2013.03.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Shigaki CK, Kruse RL, Mehr D, Sheldon KM, Bin G, Moore C, et al. Motivation and diabetes self-management. Chronic Ill. 2010;6(3):202–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742395310375630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Woo V, Bell A, Clement M, Noronha L, Tsoukas MA, Camacho F, et al. CANadian CAnagliflozin REgistry: patient-reported outcomes of canagliflozin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in canadian clinical practice. Can J Diabetes. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjd.2019.04.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Berkowitz SA, Karter AJ, Lyles CR, Liu JY, Schillinger D, Adler NE, et al. Low socioeconomic status is associated with increased risk for hypoglycemia in diabetes patients: the Diabetes Study of Northern California (DISTANCE). J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2014;25(2):478–90. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2014.0106.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Philpot LM, Barnes SA, Brown RM, Austin JA, James CS, Stanford RH, et al. Barriers and benefits to the use of patient-reported outcome measures in routine clinical care: a qualitative study. Am J Med Qual. 2018;33(4):359–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1062860617745986.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. • International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement. Type 1 and Type2 Diabetes in Adults: DATA COLLECTION REFERENCE GUIDE 2019. This report identified a core, standard set of outcomes which matter most to people with diabetes, and recommended psychological well-being, diabetes distress and depression to be routinely assessed among patients with diabetes.

  34. Tang TS, Yusuf FLA, Polonsky WH, Fisher L. Assessing quality of life in diabetes: II - deconstructing measures into a simple framework. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2017;126:286–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2016.10.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Woodcock AJ, Julious SA, Kinmonth AL, Campbell MJ. Problems with the performance of the SF-36 among people with type 2 diabetes in general practice. Qual Life Res. 2001;10(8):661–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Zettler ME, SANDOVAL R. Patient-reported outcome labeling for antidiabetic agents approved in the United States, 2011–2017. Diabetes. 2018;67(Supplement 1):1284. https://doi.org/10.2337/db18-1284-P.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Registry Of Patient Registries. Agency For Healthcare Research And Quality. 2019. https://www.ahrq.gov/ropr/index.html. Accessed 29 Aug 2019.

  38. Haverman L, van Oers HA, van Muilekom MM, Grootenhuis MA. Options for the Interpretation of and recommendations for acting on different PROMs in daily clinical practice using KLIK. Med Care. 2019;57(Suppl 5 Suppl 1):S52–s8. https://doi.org/10.1097/mlr.0000000000001061.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Grossman LV, Feiner SK, Mitchell EG, Masterson Creber RM. Leveraging patient-reported outcomes using data visualization. Appl Clin Inform. 2018;9(3):565–75. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1667041.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Radloff LS. The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report Depression Scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas. 1977;1(3):385–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Jahn R, Baumgartner JS, van den Nest M, Friedrich F, Alexandrowicz RW, Wancata J. Criterion Validity of the German Version of the CES-D in the General Population. Psychiatr Prax. 2018;45(8):434–42. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0584-9803.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Wada K, Tanaka K, Theriault G, Satoh T, Mimura M, Miyaoka H, et al. Validity of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale as a screening instrument of majosr depressive disorder among Japanese workers. Am J Ind Med. 2007;50(1):8–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. RAND Health Care. 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) Scoring Instructions. https://www.rand.org/health-care/surveys_tools/mos/36-item-short-form/scoring.html. Accessed 21 Aug 2019.

  44. Ware JEKM, Dewey JE, Gandek B. How to score and interpret single-item health status measures: a manual for users of the SF-8 Health Survey. Boston: QualityMetric, Inc; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Tokuda Y, Okubo T, Ohde S, Jacobs J, Takahashi O, Omata F, et al. Assessing items on the SF-8 Japanese version for health-related quality of life: a psychometric analysis based on the nominal categories model of item response theory. Value Health. 2009;12(4):568–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00449.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Konerding U, Elkhuizen SG, Faubel R, Forte P, Malmström T, Pavi E, et al. The validity of the EQ-5D-3L items: an investigation with type 2 diabetes patients from six European countries. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:181. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-014-0181-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Bradley C, Todd C, Gorton T, Symonds E, Martin A, Plowright R. The development of an individualized questionnaire measure of perceived impact of diabetes on quality of life: the ADDQoL. Qual Life Res. 1999;8:79–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Wee HL, Tan CE, Goh SY, Li SC. Usefulness of the Audit of Diabetes-Dependent Quality-of-Life (ADDQoL) Questionnaire in Patients with Diabetes in a Multi-Ethnic Asian Country. PharmacoEconomics. 2006;24(7):673–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. IPAQ Group. Protocol for IPAQ Short Form. In: Guidelines for Data Processing and Analysis of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) – Short and Long Forms. International Physical Activity Questionnaire. 2005. https://sites.google.com/site/theipaq/scoring-protocol. Accessed 24 Aug 2019.

  50. Tomioka K, Iwamoto J, Saeki K, Okamoto N. Reliability and validity of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) in elderly adults: the Fujiwara-kyo Study. J Epidemiol. 2011;21(6):459–65. https://doi.org/10.2188/jea.je20110003.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Whitt MC, Irwin ML, Swartz AM, Strath SJ, et al. Compendium of physical activities: an update of activity codes and MET intensities. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32(9 Suppl):S498–504.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Spitzer RL WJ, Kroenke K. Coding and Scoring. In: Instruction Manual: Instructions for Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) and GAD-7 Measures. Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) Screeners. n.d. https://www.phqscreeners.com/select-screener. Accessed 16 Aug 2019.

  53. Doi S, Ito M, Takebayashi Y, Muramatsu K, Horikoshi M. Factorial validity and invariance of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 among clinical and non-clinical populations. PLoS One. 2018;13(7):e0199235. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199235.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Ishii H. Psycho-behavioral problems in diabetes treatment. J Jpn Diab Soc. 2000;43(1):13–6.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Traina SB, Colwell HH, Crosby RD, Mathias SD. Pragmatic measurement of health satisfaction in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus using the Current Health Satisfaction Questionnaire. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2015;6:103–15. https://doi.org/10.2147/prom.S79368.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Traina SB, McQuarrie K, Barrett A, DiBenedetti D, McLeod L. Content Validity of the Current Health Satisfaction Questionnaire (Ches-Q) Among People Living with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2 dm) and Comorbid Chronic Kidney Disease (Ckd). Value Health. 2015;18(7):A710–A1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.09.2675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Arribas F, Ormaetxe JM, Peinado R, Perulero N, Ramirez P, Badia X. Validation of the AF-QoL, a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire for patients with atrial fibrillation. Europace. 2010;12(3):364–70. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eup421.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Ishii H. Development and psychometric validation of the Diabetes Therapy-Related QOL (DTR-QOL) questionnaire. J Med Econ. 2012;15(3):556–63. https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2012.665111.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Ishii H, Suzaki Y, Miyata Y, Matsui S. Randomized multicenter evaluation of quality of life and treatment satisfaction in type 2 diabetes patients receiving once-weekly trelagliptin versus a daily dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor. Diabetes Ther. 2019;10(4):1369–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-019-0643-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Ishii H, Kim HR, Crawford B. The revalidation of the diabetes treatment-related quality-of-life (DTR-QOL) questionnaire in Japan. Diabetol Int. 2019;10(2):93–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13340-018-0371-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Ji L, Zhang P, Weng J, Lu J, Guo X, Jia W, et al. Observational Registry of Basal Insulin Treatment (ORBIT) in Patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled by oral hypoglycemic agents in China--study design and baseline characteristics. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015;17(10):735–44. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2015.0054.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Toobert DJ, Hampson SE, Glasgow RE. The summary of diabetes self-care activities measure: results from 7 studies and a revised scale. Diabetes Care. 2000;23(7):943–50. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.23.7.943.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Levesque CS, Williams GC, Elliot D, Pickering MA, Bodenhamer B, Finley PJ. Validating the theoretical structure of the Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire (TSRQ) across three different health behaviors. Health Educ Res. 2006;22(5):691–702. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyl148.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. RAND Health Care. Social Support Survey Instrument Scoring Instructions. n.d. https://www.rand.org/health-care/surveys_tools/mos/social-support/scoring.html. Accessed 21 Aug 2019.

  65. Hayashino Y, Tsujii S, Ishii H. High frequency of non-nocturnal hypoglycemia was associated with poor sleep quality measure by Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index in patients with diabetes receiving insulin therapy: Diabetes Distress and Care Registry at Tenri (DDCRT 4). Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 2013;121(10):628–34. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1355424.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Kobayashi S, Honda S, Murakami K, Sasaki S, Okubo H, Hirota N, et al. Both comprehensive and brief self-administered diet history questionnaires satisfactorily rank nutrient intakes in Japanese adults. J Epidemiol. 2012;22(2):151–9. https://doi.org/10.2188/jea.je20110075.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Merola A, Sturchio A, Hacker S, Serna S, Vizcarra JA, Marsili L, et al. Technology-based assessment of motor and nonmotor phenomena in Parkinson disease. Expert Rev Neurother. 2018;18(11):825–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737175.2018.1530593.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, 12 Science Drive 2, Singapore, 117549, Singapore

    Yu Ting Chen & Hwee-Lin Wee

  2. Department of Health Management and Economics, University of Oslo, Kirkeveien 166, Frederik Holsts hus , 0450, Oslo, Norway

    Yan Zhi Tan

  3. Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50 , Rotterdam, PA, 3062, Netherlands

    Yan Zhi Tan

  4. Danone Asia Pacific Holdings, 1 Wallich Street, #18-01 Guoco Tower, Singapore, 078881, Singapore

    Mcvin Cheen

  5. Medicine Academic Clinical Programme, Duke-NUS Medical School, 8 College Rd, Singapore, 169857, Singapore

    Mcvin Cheen

  6. Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Science, National University of Singapore, 18 Science Drive 4, Singapore, 117543, Singapore

    Hwee-Lin Wee

Authors
  1. Yu Ting Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yan Zhi Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mcvin Cheen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hwee-Lin Wee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hwee-Lin Wee.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any study with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Diabetes Epidemiology

Appendix

Appendix

Table 2 Search strategy for this review
Full size table
Table 3 Quality assessment of included studies, using the NIH National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute quality assessment tool for cross-sectional studies
Full size table
Table 4 List of PROMs included in the systematic review
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, Y.T., Tan, Y.Z., Cheen, M. et al. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Registry-Based Studies of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: a Systematic Review. Curr Diab Rep 19, 135 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-019-1265-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-019-1265-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation