ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2026
Assessing the assessment: a scoping review of the mode of patient-reported outcome assessment in solid cancer clinical trials.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTransparent reporting of how patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are collected is essential to ensure reproducible and interpretable data. Different modes of assessment may affect data quality and feasibility, yet their use in cancer trials is poorly described. Electronic PRO (ePRO) assessment may improve data quality and enable active review, but it is unclear how often different modes of assessment like ePRO assessment are used and in which trials.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed for randomized controlled trials (published 2019-2023) that used cancer-specific PRO measures in patients with the six most common solid cancers. Trial characteristics, PRO reporting practices, and evidence of active review of PRO data were summarized descriptively. Univariate logistic regression was used to examine predictors of (1) reporting the mode of PRO assessment and (2) use of ePROs exclusively.
resultsOf 9331 references screened, 296 trials were included in the analysis. 135 (45.6%) reported the mode of PRO assessment: paper (51.9%), ePRO (20.7%), mixed modes (24.4%). Trials were more likely to report the mode of assessment if they were industry-sponsored (OR = 2.00, 95%, p = .005), or had larger sample sizes (OR = 1.11, 95%, p < .001). ePRO assessment exclusively was used more in recently registered trials (OR = 1.41, p < .001) and in industry-sponsored trials (OR = 8.38, p < .001). Active, in-stream review of PRO results was reported in 2.0% of trials.
conclusionDespite clear guidelines, reporting of the mode of PRO assessment remains inadequate, and active review of PRO data is uncommon. Strengthening transparency and using PROs more actively within trials could enhance patient-centered cancer research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.