Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23758898›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2013

A systematic review of the impact of routine collection of patient reported outcome measures on patients, providers and health organisations in an oncologic setting.

Jack Chen, Lixin Ou, Stephanie J Hollis

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04456920 (Pain Monitoring After Breast Biopsy), which is not on this map. Cited by 421 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
421citing papers in PubMed, 15 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.

NCT04456920 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Pain Monitoring After Breast Biopsy: Benefit of E-health

TypeinterventionalSponsorInstitut du Cancer de Montpellier - Val d'AurelleRan2021 to 2024Enrolled193ConditionsBreast Cancer, Biopsy WoundArmsphone consultation, e-PRO self-completed via connected objects (tablet/phone), visit
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

421 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Eligibility definitions and response rate accuracy in studies using routinely collected PROMs: a systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Nurse-led telehealth interventions for symptom management in patients with cancer receiving systemic or radiation therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Pooled it
  15. Perceived benefits and limitations of using patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice with individual patients: a systematic review of qualitative studies.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022
    Pooled it
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

361 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Jack ChenThe Simpson Centre for Health Services Research, South Western Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Liverpool 2170NSW, Australia. jackchen@unsw.edu.au
Lixin Ou
Stephanie J Hollis

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite growing interest and urges by leading experts for the routine collection of patient reported outcome (PRO) measures in all general care patients, and in particular cancer patients, there has not been an updated comprehensive review of the evidence regarding the impact of adopting such a strategy on patients, service providers and organisations in an oncologic setting.

methodsBased on a critical analysis of the three most recent systematic reviews, the current systematic review developed a six-method strategy in searching and reviewing the most relevant quantitative studies between January 2000 and October 2011 using a set of pre-determined inclusion criteria and theory-based outcome indicators. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to rate the quality and importance of the identified publications, and the synthesis of the evidence was conducted.

resultsThe 27 identified studies showed strong evidence that the well-implemented PROs improved patient-provider communication and patient satisfaction. There was also growing evidence that it improved the monitoring of treatment response and the detection of unrecognised problems. However, there was a weak or non-existent evidence-base regarding the impact on changes to patient management and improved health outcomes, changes to patient health behaviour, the effectiveness of quality improvement of organisations, and on transparency, accountability, public reporting activities, and performance of the health care system.

conclusionsDespite the existence of significant gaps in the evidence-base, there is growing evidence in support of routine PRO collection in enabling better and patient-centred care in cancer settings.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CarePhysician-Patient RelationsQuality Indicators, Health CareEvidence-Based MedicineHumansNeoplasmsPatient SatisfactionPractice Guidelines as TopicQualitative ResearchSelf ReportTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID23758898
PMCPMC3700832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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 OpenQuestion graph.