Defining score interpretation thresholds for clinical outcome assessments: a review of terminology and reporting recommendations
COA score interpretation threshold terminology is far from harmonized. Evidence is insufficient to derive specific recommendations on which terms to use. Instead, we present minimum reporting standards for defining thresholds to ensure that they are comprehensible and reproducible, regardless of the specific terms and acronyms used.
Authors
- Sandra Nolte (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6185-9423)
- Sonya Eremenco (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3956-0235)
- Emuella Flood (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3526-9670)
- Jammbe Musoro (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6228-3531)
- Bellinda L. King‐Kallimanis (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9418-9374)
- Joseph C. Cappelleri (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9586-0748)
- N. Clarke
- Caroline Ward (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4857-7397)
Institutions
- Pharmaceutical Product Development (United States) (US)
- Pfizer (United States) (US)
- Critical Path Institute (US)
- Otsuka (United States) (US)
- Eastern Health (AU)
- Monash Health (AU)
- LUNGevity Foundation (US)
- European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (BE)
- AstraZeneca (United States) (US)
- Statistical Research (United States) (US)
- Monash University (AU)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
- Published
- 2025-11-26
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-025-00966-2
- Citations
- 2
- Primary Topic
- Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 2.71
Funders
- AstraZeneca