Digitized assessments have a considerable potential to guide clinicial decision making and monitor progress and disease trajectories. The Timed Up and Go test (TUG) has been long established for assessment in geriatric medicine and instrumented versions (iTUG) have been developed and validated. This scoping review includes studies that applied the iTUG and aims to identify use cases to show where and how iTUG assessment could guide interventions and clinical management. The literature search was limited to peer-reviewed studies that performed pre- and post-intervention measurements with a 3-meter TUG instrumented with body-worn technology in samples of at least 20 subjects aged 60+ years. Of 3018 identified articles 20 were included. Four clinical use cases were identified: stratification for subsequent therapy, monitoring of disease or treatment-associated changes and evaluation of interventions in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (1), and patients with Parkinson\'s disease (2); monitoring after joint replacement surgery (3), and evaluation after different exercise and rehabilitation interventions (4). The included studies show diversity in terms of iTUG technology and procedures. The identified use cases highlight clinical relevance and high potential for the clinical application of the iTUG. A consensual approach as well as comprehensive reporting would help to further exploit the potential of the iTUG to support clinical management. Future studies should investigate the benefits of segmental iTUG analysis, responsiveness and participants\' perspectives on clinically meaningful changes in iTUG.

BACKGROUND: Over the past few decades, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been used to understand patient health conditions better. Therefore, numerous PRO measures (questionnaires) and guidelines or guidance have been developed. However, it is challenging to select target guidance from among the many available guidance and to understand the chosen guidance. This study comprehensively collected the existing PRO guidance for clinical trials or studies and practices to support novice PRO users in academia, industry, clinical practice, and regulatory and reimbursement decision-making.
METHODS: For the scoping review, we searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Google Books, WorldCat, and the National Library of Medicine (NLM) Bookshelf databases from 2009 to 2023. The eligibility criteria were PRO guidance for clinical trials, clinical practice, or application such as health technology assessment. Those guidance cover aspects such as quality of life (QOL), PRO, health-related QOL, health state utilities, psychometric requirements, implementation methods, analysis and interpretation, or clinical practice applications. After the systematic search, three researchers individually reviewed the collected data, and the reviewed articles and books were scrutinized using the same criteria.
RESULTS: We collected the PRO guidance published in articles and books between 2009 and 2023. From the database searches, 1,455 articles and 387 books were identified, of which one book and 33 articles were finally selected. The collected PRO guidance was categorized into the adoption of PRO measures, design and reporting of trials or studies using PROs, implementation of PRO evaluation in clinical trials or studies or clinical practice, analysis and interpretation of PROs, and application of PRO evaluation. Based on this categorization, we suggest the following for novices: When selecting guidance, novices should clarify the \"place\" and \"purpose\" where the guidance will be used. Additionally, they should know that the terminology related to PRO and the scope and expectations of PROs vary by \"places\" and \"purposes\".
CONCLUSIONS: From this scoping review of existing PRO guidance, we provided summaries and caveats to assist novices in selecting guidance that fits their purpose and understanding it.

OBJECTIVE: To identify symptoms and their impacts on daily functioning and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) experienced by adult patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and evaluate patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures for UC clinical studies.
METHODS: A conceptual model of symptoms and impacts of UC were developed from a literature review. PRO measures were identified from the literature, clinical trials databases, health technology assessment submissions, and regulatory label claims, and were selected for conceptual analysis based on disease specificity and use across information sources. PRO measures covering the most concepts when mapped against the conceptual model were assessed for gaps in psychometric properties using Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance and consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) criteria.
RESULTS: The conceptual model grouped the 52 symptom concepts and 72 proximal and distal impacts into eight, two, and five dimensions, respectively. Of 65 PRO measures identified, eight underwent conceptual analysis. Measures covering the most concepts and assessed for psychometric properties were the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire, Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire for UC, UC-PRO symptoms modules, UC-PRO impact modules, and Crohn\'s and UC Questionnaire; all had good or excellent support for content validity. The UC-PRO Signs and Symptoms fully met FDA guidance and COSMIN criteria for content validity and most psychometric properties.
CONCLUSIONS: Existing PRO measures assess concepts relevant to patients with UC, but all PRO measures reviewed require further psychometric evaluation to demonstrate they are fit for purpose.

BACKGROUND: Insight into the relationship between concepts that matter to the people affected by Alzheimer\'s disease (AD) and the clinical outcome assessments (COAs) commonly used in AD clinical studies is limited. Phases 1 and 2 of the What Matters Most (WMM) study series identified and quantitatively confirmed 42 treatment-related outcomes that are important to people affected by AD.
METHODS: We compared WMM concepts rated as \"very important\" or higher to items included in COAs used commonly in AD studies.
RESULTS: Twenty COAs designed to assess signs, symptoms, and impacts across the spectrum of AD were selected for review. Among these 20 COAs, only 5 reflected 12 or more WMM concepts [Integrated Alzheimer\'s Disease Rating Scale (iADRS), Alzheimer\'s Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory (ADCS-ADL), Alzheimer\'s Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory-Mild Cognitive Impairment (ADCS-ADL-MCI), Alzheimer\'s Disease Composite Scores (ADCOMS), and Clinical Dementia Rating; Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR/CDR-SB)]. Multiple symptoms and impacts of AD identified as important and meaningful in the WMM studies map only indirectly at best to 7 of the 20 most widely used COAs.
CONCLUSIONS: While many frequently used COAs in AD capture some concepts identified as important to AD populations and their care partners, overlap between any single measure and the concepts that matter to people affected by AD is limited. The highest singly matched COA reflects fewer than half (45%) of WMM concepts. Use of multiple COAs expands coverage of meaningful concepts. Future research should explore the content validity of AD COAs planned for AD trials based on further confirmation of the ecological validity of the WMM items. This research should inform development and use of core outcome sets that capture WMM items and selection or development of new companion tools to fully demonstrate clinically meaningful outcomes spanning WMM.

The objective of the present review is to synthesize all available research on the association between mobility capacity and incident disability in non-disabled older adults. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases were searched without any limits or restrictions until February 2021. Published reports of longitudinal cohort studies that estimated a direct association between baseline mobility capacity, assessed with a standardized outcome assessment, and subsequent development of disability, including initially non-disabled older adults were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Random-effect models were used to explore the objective. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. The main outcome measures were the pooled relative risks (RR) per one conventional unit per mobility assessment for incident disability. A total of 40 reports (85,515 participants at baseline) were included. For usual and fast gait speed, the RR per -0.1 m/s was 1.23 (95% CI: 1.18-1.28; 26,638 participants) and 1.28 (95% CI: 1.19-1.38; 8161 participants), respectively. Each point decrease in Short Physical Performance Battery score increased the risk of incident disability by 30% (RR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.23-1.38; 9183 participants). The RR of incident disability by each second increase in Timed Up and Go test and Chair Rise Test performance was 1.15 (95% CI: 1.09-1.21; 30,426 participants) and 1.07 (95% CI: 1.04-1.10; 9450 participants), respectively. The review concludes that among community-dwelling non-disabled older adults, poor mobility capacity is a potent modifiable risk factor for incident disability. Mobility impairment should be mandated as a quality indicator of health for older people.

To review the acute migraine clinical trial literature and provide a summary of the endpoints and outcomes used in such trials.
A systematic literature review, following a prespecified (but unregistered) protocol developed to adhere to recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, was conducted to understand endpoints and outcomes used in acute migraine clinical trials. Predefined terms were searched in PubMed to locate clinical trials assessing acute migraine treatments. Final database search was conducted on October 28, 2019. Identified publications were reviewed against established inclusion and exclusion criteria to determine eligibility. Data related to general trial design characteristics, sample characteristics, and outcomes and endpoints reported in each publication were extracted from eligible publications. Descriptive summaries of design features, sample characteristics, and the endpoints and outcomes employed across publications were constructed. Outcomes are presented within four broad categories: (a) pain-related outcomes (pain relief, pain freedom, etc.), (b) associated symptoms (nausea, photophobia, etc.), (c) disability/impairment/impact, (d) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs, general health and migraine/headache-specific). Endpoint types were categorized within three broad categories: (a) change from baseline, (b) fixed timepoint, and (c) responder definitions (e.g., 50% reduction). This review focuses on a subset of recent (1998 or later) randomized and blinded publications evaluating drugs or medical devices.
Of 1567 publications found through the initial search and reference section reviews, 705 met criteria and were included for data extraction. Inter-rater agreement kappas for the descriptive variables extracted had an average kappa estimate of 0.86. The more recent, randomized and blinded pharmaceutical and medical device article subset includes 451 publications (451/705, 63.9%). The outcomes and endpoints varied substantially across trials, ranging from pain relief or freedom, freedom from or relief of migraine-associated symptoms, use of acute or rescue medication, and various other PROMs, including measures of satisfaction and quality of life. Within the recent randomized and blinded article subset, most articles examined ≥1 pain-related outcome (430/451, 95.3%). Of the publications that examined pain, outcomes most often used were pain relief (310/430, 72.1%), pain freedom (279/430, 64.9%), and headache recurrence (202/43,051, 47.0%) or rescue medication use (278/430, 64.9%). Associated symptoms such as nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia were more frequently measured (299/451, 66.3%) compared to most bothersome associated symptom (16/451, 3.5%), as it is a new addition to regulatory guidance. Over one-third of eligible publications examined disability/impairment (186/451, 41.2%) or ≥1 PROM (159/451, 35.3%). The definition of the endpoints used (e.g., change from baseline, fixed timepoint comparisons, categorization of \"responders\" to treatment based on wide variety of \"responder definitions\") also differed substantially across publications.
Acute migraine clinical trials exhibit a large amount of variability in outcomes and endpoints used, in addition to the variability in how outcomes and endpoints were used from trial-to-trial. There were some common elements across trials that align with guidance from the International Headache Society, the Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory agencies (e.g., assessing pain and associated symptoms, 2-hour post-treatment). Other aspects of acute migraine clinical trial design did not follow guidance. For example, multi-item PROMs intended to measure constructs (e.g., scales) are rarely used, the use of pain-related outcomes is inconsistent, some associated symptom assessments are idiosyncratic, and the timing of the assessment of primary endpoints is variable. The development of a core set of outcomes and endpoints for acute migraine clinical trials that are patient-centered and statistically robust could improve the conduct of individual trials, facilitate cross-trial comparisons, and better support informed treatment decisions by healthcare professionals and patients.

Over the last six decades (earliest included publication from 1959), clinical trials of migraine preventive treatments have led to the regulatory approval of many medications and devices. Despite similar clinical goals, the outcomes and endpoints used in these trials are broad and not well standardized.
To describe results from a systematic literature review focused on outcomes and endpoints used in preventive migraine clinical trials.
A systematic literature review, following a pre-specified (unregistered) protocol developed to adhere to recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, was conducted to characterize the endpoints and outcomes used in preventive migraine clinical trials. Predetermined terms were searched in PubMed on October 28, 2019. Data related to trial design, subject characteristics, outcomes, and endpoints reported in each publication were extracted. Descriptive summaries of these features were tabulated for the recent subset of publications, published during or after 1988, that were randomized, blinded, and focused on pharmacological or device therapies for the preventive treatment of migraine.
The initial literature search identified 1506 publications, of which 757 publications were eligible for data extraction. Of specific clinical interest were the recent subset of 268 articles (268/757, 35.4%) fulfilling the targeted criteria. Results showed that the outcomes used to define endpoints varied substantially across publications. For example, in the recent subset of publications, 68.7% (184/268) of the publications examined ≥1 migraine-specific outcome, 39.6% (106/268) examined ≥1 headache-specific outcome, 50.7% (136/268) examined ≥1 acute/rescue medication use outcome, 40.3% (108/268) examined ≥1 headache-related patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), and 22.0% (59/268) examined ≥1 non-headache-specific PROM. Furthermore, the definition of the endpoints used (e.g., change from baseline, fixed timepoint comparisons, categorization of \"responders\" to treatment based on wide variety of \"responder definitions\") also differed across publications.
Publications from clinical trials of preventive migraine pharmacologic and device treatments differed in terms of study design, endpoint definitions, and how endpoints and outcomes were measured. Although there were common outcomes and endpoints used across publications, no clear \"standardized\" set of endpoints and outcomes emerged. The inconsistencies in endpoints and outcomes within this literature suggest that the development of a uniform set of outcomes and endpoints could improve the clinical meaningfulness of clinical trial results, facilitate cross-trial comparisons and better inform patient care. This standard set of outcomes and endpoints should be statistically robust and informed by the priorities of various stakeholders, most importantly, the needs and preferences of people living with migraine.

OBJECTIVE: Various clinical outcome assessments (COAs) are used in clinical research to assess and monitor treatment efficacy in pediatric attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) trials. It is unclear whether the concepts assessed are those that are important to patients and their caregivers. The concepts measured by commonly used COAs in this population have not been explicitly compared.
METHODS: We conducted reviews of the qualitative literature to extract information on pediatric ADHD-related concepts reported by pediatric patients, parents, and teachers. Using these concepts, we developed a conceptual framework of pediatric ADHD using both the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) criteria and the additional symptoms and behavioral impacts identified in the literature. We searched for COAs that have been used in pediatric ADHD research and mapped their items based on their conceptual underpinning.
RESULTS: Of the 27 COAs found in the empirical literature, 4 COAs assessed only DSM symptoms. The most comprehensive coverage of our conceptual framework was seen in the Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham Rating Scale-DSM-IV (SNAP-IV). Eighteen COAs were used in at least 1 clinical trial: ADHD-Rating Scale-IV (ADHD-RS-IV) was used most often (n=77), followed by SNAP-IV (n=50), Swanson, Kotkin, Agler, M-Flynn, and Pelham Scale (SKAMP; n=31), Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale (WFIRS; n=24), and Vanderbilt ADHD Diagnostic Rating Scale (VADRS; n=15).
CONCLUSIONS: We identified symptoms and behavioral impacts from qualitative studies in pediatric ADHD that are not included in DSM-based criteria. Most COAs used in pediatric ADHD clinical trials measure only those symptoms listed in the DSM. While these COAs can measure symptom severity, they may not assess the full range of symptoms and impacts important to patients and their caregivers. Future research is needed to measure all concepts important to patients and caregivers within ADHD clinical trials.

There is considerable variability in the use of outcome measures in clinical trials for cannabis use disorder (CUD), and a lack of consensus regarding optimal outcomes may have hindered development and approval of new pharmacotherapies. The goal of this paper is to summarize an evaluation of assessment measures and clinical endpoints for CUD clinical trials, and propose a research agenda and priorities to improve CUD clinical outcome assessments. The primary recommendation is that sustained abstinence from cannabis should not be considered the primary outcome for all CUD clinical trials as it has multiple limitations. However, there are multiple challenges to the development of a reliable and valid indicator of cannabis reduction, including the lack of a standard unit of measure for the various forms of cannabis and products and the limitations of currently available biological and self-report assessments. Development of a core toolkit of assessments is needed to both allow flexibility for study design, while facilitating interpretation of outcomes across trials. Four primary agenda items for future research are identified to expedite development of improved clinical outcome assessments for this toolkit: (1) determine whether minimally invasive biologic assays could identify an acute level of cannabis use associated with psychomotor impairment or other cannabis-related harms; (2) create an indicator of quantity of cannabis use that is consistent across product types; (3) examine the presence of cannabis-specific functional outcomes; and (4) identify an optimal duration to assess changes in CUD diagnostic criteria.

The efficacy of medicines, medical devices, and other health technologies should be proved in trials that assess final patient-relevant outcomes such as survival or morbidity. Market access and coverage decisions are, however, often based on surrogate end points, biomarkers, or intermediate end points, which aim to substitute and predict patient-relevant outcomes that are unavailable because of methodological, financial, or practical constraints. We provide a summary of the present use of surrogate end points in health care policy, discussing the case for and against their adoption and reviewing validation methods. We introduce a three-step framework for policymakers to handle surrogates, which involves establishing the level of evidence, assessing the strength of the association, and quantifying relations between surrogates and final outcomes. Although the use of surrogates can be problematic, they can, when selected and validated appropriately, offer important opportunities for more efficient clinical trials and faster access to new health technologies that benefit patients and health care systems.