Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26887586›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2016

Electronic real-time assessment of patient-reported outcomes in routine care-first findings and experiences from the implementation in a comprehensive cancer center.

Freya Trautmann, Leopold Hentschel, Beate Hornemann, Anke Rentsch, Michael Baumann, Gerhard Ehninger, Jochen Schmitt, Markus Schuler

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors.

Freya TrautmannCenter for Evidence Based Healthcare (ZEGV), Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Leopold HentschelUniversity Cancer Center, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany. Leopold.Hentschel@uniklinikum-dresden.de.ORCID 0000-0002-5792-2079
Beate HornemannUniversity Cancer Center, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Anke RentschUniversity Cancer Center, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Michael BaumannUniversity Cancer Center, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Gerhard EhningerUniversity Cancer Center, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Jochen SchmittCenter for Evidence Based Healthcare (ZEGV), Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Markus SchulerUniversity Cancer Center, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCancer patients suffer from a variety of physical and mental complaints. Since physician assessment of symptoms seems insufficient to reveal the complete range of patients' ailments, patient-reported outcomes (PRO) have become of key importance in modern cancer treatment. The implementation and first results of a systematic electronic real-time assessment of PRO in routine care is described.

methodsConsecutive patients presenting for the first time to a German comprehensive cancer center were asked to fill in an adaptive self-administered electronic questionnaire consisting of standardized PRO measures. After completion, patient-reported data was linked to the patients' medical files for discussion in the first consultation with the treating physician. Interviews with staff were conducted to identify barriers in implementation.

resultsOut of 160 cancer patients, 126 (79 %; mean age 63 years, 67 % males) agreed to participate. The number of recruited patients increased over time. Of participating patients, 67 % provided complete information on all PRO-related scales. On average, 31 min (range 3-140) were required to fill in the questionnaire. Of participating patients, 53.0 % comprised need for psychooncological support and 62 % revealed moderate to severe psychosocial distress. The mean score for global quality of life according to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) was 55.2 (SD ±25.6).

conclusionsComprehensive oncological treatment needs to consider disease symptoms, quality of life, preferences, and comorbidities of individual patients in a structured, standardized, and transparent way. Our findings indicate that an adaptive, self-administered electronic assessment tool for cancer patients to report a broad set of PRO can be feasibly implemented and is well accepted by patients in a realistic setting.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresAgedFemaleHumansMaleNeoplasmsQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesTelemedicineElectronic assessmentOncologyPatient carePatient-reported outcomesQuality of lifeRoutine care

Identifiers

PMID26887586

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.