Evidence mapPaperPMID 37313372Full record

ArticleCancer informatics2023

Development of an eHealth Tool for Capturing and Analyzing the Immune-related Adverse Events (irAEs) in Cancer Treatment.

Saeed Moradian, Shive Ghasemi, Babak Boutorabi, Zakieh Sharifian, Fay Dastjerdi, Catriona Buick, Charlotte T Lee, Samantha J Mayo, Plinio P Morita, Doris Howell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer informatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Feasibility and usefulness of symptom monitoring with electronic patient-reported outcomes: an experience at single-center outpatient oncology clinic.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Saeed MoradianSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5289-4806
Shive GhasemiShahid Beheshti, Tehran, Iran.
Babak BoutorabiTehran University, Tehran, Iran.
Zakieh SharifianIslamic Azad University, Najaf Abad, Iran.
Fay DastjerdiSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Catriona BuickSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Charlotte T LeeDaphne Cockwell School of Nursing, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Samantha J MayoLawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Plinio P MoritaSchool of Public Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Doris HowellPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of many different types of cancer, but it is associated with a myriad of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures have been identified as valuable tools for continuously collecting patient-centered data and are frequently used in oncology trials. However, few studies still research an ePRO follow-up approach on patients treated with Immunotherapy, potentially reflecting a lack of support services for this population. Methods: The team co-developed a digital platform (V-Care) using ePROs to create a new follow-up pathway for cancer patients receiving immunotherapy. To operationalize the first 3 phases of the CeHRes roadmap, we employed multiple methods that were integrated throughout the development process, rather than being performed in a linear fashion. The teams employed an agile approach in a dynamic and iterative manner, engaging key stakeholders throughout the process. Results: The development of the application was categorized into 2 phases: "user interface" (UI) and "user experience" (UX) designs. In the first phase, the pages of the application were segmented into general categories, and feedback from all stakeholders was received and used to modify the application. In phase 2, mock-up pages were developed and sent to the Figma website. Moreover, the Android Package Kit (APK) of the application was installed and tested multiple times on a mobile phone to proactively detect and fix any errors. After resolving some technical issues and adjusting errors on the Android version to improve the user experience, the iOS version of the application was developed. Discussion: By incorporating the latest technological developments, V-Care has enabled cancer patients to have access to more comprehensive and personalized care, allowing them to better manage their condition and be better informed about their health decisions. These advances have also enabled healthcare professionals to be better equipped with the knowledge and tools to provide more effective and efficient care. In addition, the advances in V-Care technology have allowed patients to connect with their healthcare providers more easily, providing a platform to facilitate communication and collaboration. Although usability testing is necessary to evaluate the efficacy and user experience of the app, it can be a significant investment of time and resources. Conclusion: The V-Care platform can be used to investigate the reported symptoms experienced by cancer patients receiving Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and to compare them with the results from clinical trials. Furthermore, the project will utilize ePRO tools to collect symptoms from patients and provide insight into whether the reported symptoms are linked to the treatment. Clinical Relevance: V-Care provides a secure, easy-to-use interface for patient-clinician communication and data exchange. Its clinical system stores and manages patient data in a secure environment, while its clinical decision support system helps clinicians make decisions that are more informed, efficient, and cost-effective. This system has the potential to improve patient safety and quality of care, while also helping to reduce healthcare costs.

Indexed as

clinical decision support systemcomputable algorithmseHealth innovationhealth technologyImmune-related adverse eventsmHealthsupportive care

Identifiers

PMID37313372
PMCPMC10259133

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.