In his recent editorial, Vickers¹ expressed concern about the field of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and about some specific PRO measures (PROMs). First, we agree wholeheartedly with the statement by Vickers¹ that “there is no room for complacency about the current state of the PRO literature,”^1(p1) as we hope there is no room for complacency about any scientific field. The assessment of health status is a dynamic field that continues to evolve. Of course, there are those who fall into routinized and unreflective scientific activities, as is the case in all fields, and so we would not disagree that published PRO studies vary in their degree of thoughtfulness. Vickers¹ rightly criticizes the wide overuse and underspecification of the “reliable and valid measure” phrasing. But within our field, we strive to hold researchers accountable to the methodologic standards and best practices that have been developed.²

中文翻译：

---

评估患者报告的结果：谈判过程。

维克斯（Vickers）¹在最近的社论中对患者报告的结局（PRO）领域和某些特定的PRO措施（PROM）表示关注。首先，我们完全同意维克斯（Vickers）¹的说法，“对PRO文学的当前状态没有自满的余地，” ^{1 （p1），}因为我们希望对任何科学领域都没有自满的余地。健康状况评估是一个不断发展的动态领域。当然，有些人像所有领域一样属于常规的，非反思性的科学活动，因此我们不会不同意已发表的PRO研究的思想程度有所不同。威格士¹正确地批评“可靠和有效的措施”措词的广泛使用和规格不足。但是在我们的领域内，我们努力使研究人员对已经制定的方法标准和最佳实践负责。²