Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39083791›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2024

Examining the Effectiveness of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in People With Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Melissa Betty Perry, Sally Taylor, Binish Khatoon, Amy Vercell, Corinne Faivre-Finn, Galina Velikova, Antonia Marsden, Calvin Heal, Janelle Yorke

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Customizing workflows for electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) symptom monitoring using the action, actor, context, target, time (AACTT) framework.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Melissa Betty PerryChristie Patient Centred Research, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0002-2978-2272
Sally TaylorChristie Patient Centred Research, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9026-1789
Binish KhatoonChristie Patient Centred Research, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1266-3990
Amy VercellChristie Patient Centred Research, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4121-6524
Corinne Faivre-FinnDivision of Cancer Science, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5617-9781
Galina VelikovaLeeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1899-5942
Antonia MarsdenDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3955-2649
Calvin HealDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6445-1551
Janelle YorkeChristie Patient Centred Research, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1344-5944

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) are commonly used in oncology clinical practice and have shown benefits for patients and health resource use.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the isolated effect of administering ePROs to patients with cancer versus a control condition.

methodsThe PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. Randomized controlled trials evaluating ePRO interventions that aimed to improve health-related outcomes among patients with cancer were included. The primary outcome was health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and the secondary outcomes were symptoms, hospital admissions, unplanned visits, chemotherapy completion, survival, and satisfaction with care. The effect sizes of ePROs on health-related outcomes were analyzed as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs using a random effects model.

resultsThe search identified 10,965 papers, of which 19 (0.17%) from 15 studies were included. The meta-analysis showed an improvement in HRQOL at 3 months, measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.39), and at 6 months, assessed using various HRQOL measures (SMD 0.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.30). Of the 15 studies, 9 (60%) reported a positive signal on HRQOL, with two-thirds of the studies (n=6, 67%) including tailored patient advice and two-thirds (n=6, 67%) using clinician alert systems.

conclusionsThe meta-analysis showed an improvement in HRQOL at 6 months and in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General scores at 3 months for studies that included tailored advice and clinician alerts, suggesting that these elements may improve ePRO effectiveness. The findings will provide guidance for future use and help health care professionals choose the most suitable ePRO features for their patients.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020175007; https://tinyurl.com/5cwmy3j6.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicmeta-analysisneoplasmspatient-reported outcome measurequality of liferandomized controlled trialsystematic reviewtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID39083791
PMCPMC11325109

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.