ReviewQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2015
Equivalence of electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome measures.
Review in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
73 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Examining the Effectiveness of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in People With Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- A meta-analytic review of measurement equivalence study findings of the SF-36® and SF-12® Health Surveys across electronic modes compared to paper administration.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2018Pooled it
- Measurement equivalence of the paper-based and electronic version of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS): A randomised crossover trial.Palliative medicine · 2023Trial
- Differences in Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 and Kessler Screening Scale for Psychological Distress Scores between Smartphone Version versus Paper Version Administration: Evidence of Equivalence.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Trial
- Evaluation of Electronic and Pen-and-Paper Formats of the Inventory of Physical Activity Barriers: A Randomized Crossover Study.Journal of physical activity & health · 2022Trial
- Mobile electronic versus paper case report forms in clinical trials: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical research methodology · 2017Trial
- Development of a patient-reported outcomes registry for patients with brain tumours (BEACON).ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Article
- Are quality of life data reported in clinical trials evaluating CAR T cells in hematologic malignancies?Hematology, transfusion and cell therapy · 2026Article
- Measurement Properties of the European Portuguese Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) in Paper and Electronic Formats: Instrument Validation Study.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2026Article
- A mixed methods study on patients' and healthcare professionals' understanding of the graphical presentation of patient-reported outcome data at an inpatient unit for psychosomatic medicine.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
- Healthcare Professional Perspectives on Digital Health-Related Quality-of-Life Assessment in Paediatric Radiation Therapy: A Qualitative Study.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- Moving forward, leaving the patients behind? A multilevel assessment framework for evaluating patient-centred, integrated care quality.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Review
- PROs Assessment in Dual (Either Oral or Injectable) Antiretroviral Regimen in People with HIV: A Narrative Review.Viruses · 2025Review
- Patient-reported outcomes - the missing link to advancing light chain (AL) amyloidosis clinical research.Blood reviews · 2025Review
- Validation and Acceptability of the Mobile App Version of the Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test for Children (CARATKids): Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2025Article
- An Evaluation of Time Spent Completing Electronically Collected Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2025Article
- Equivalence of Paper and Smartphone Versions of the Beck Depression Inventory-II.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Clarifications and perspectives on mental health assessment during the COVID-19 pandemic.Revista brasileira de psiquiatria (Sao Paulo, Brazil : 1999) · 2025Article
- Article
13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimElectronic formats (ePROs) of paper-based patient-reported outcomes (PROs) should be validated before they can be reliably used. This review aimed to examine studies investigating measurement equivalence between ePROs and their paper originals to identify methodologies used and to determine the extent of such validation.
methodsThree databases (OvidSP, Web of Science and PubMed) were searched using a set of keywords. Results were examined for compliance with inclusion criteria. Articles or abstracts that directly compared screen-based electronic versions of PROs with their validated paper-based originals, with regard to their measurement equivalence, were included. Publications were excluded if the only instruments reported were stand-alone visual analogue scales or interactive voice response formats. Papers published before 2007 were excluded, as a previous meta-analysis examined papers published before this time.
resultsFifty-five studies investigating 79 instruments met the inclusion criteria. 53 % of the 79 instruments studied were condition specific. Several instruments, such as the SF-36, were reported in more than one publication. The most frequently reported formats for ePROs were Web-based versions. In 78 % of the publications, there was evidence of equivalence or comparability between the two formats as judged by study authors. Of the 30 publications that provided preference data, 87 % found that overall participants preferred the electronic format.
conclusionsWhen examining equivalence between paper and electronic versions of PROs, formats are usually judged by authors to be equivalent. Participants prefer electronic formats. This literature review gives encouragement to the further widespread development and use of ePROs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25702266What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.