Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27220523›Full record

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

Evaluation of quality of life using a tablet PC-based survey in cancer patients treated with radiotherapy: a multi-institutional prospective randomized crossover comparison of paper and tablet PC-based questionnaires (KROG 12-01).

Haeyoung Kim, Hee Chul Park, Sang Min Yoon, Tae Hyun Kim, Jinsung Kim, Min Kyu Kang, Jinhong Jung, Sang-Won Kim, Ji Woon Yea, Sung Ho Park and 1 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Validation of the Chinese version of functional assessment of anorexia-cachexia therapy (FAACT) scale for measuring quality of life in cancer patients with cachexia.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2017
    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

11 authors.

Haeyoung KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hallym University Dongtan Sacred Heart Hospital, Hwaseong, South Korea.
Hee Chul ParkDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710, South Korea. hee.ro.park@samsung.com.
Sang Min YoonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea. drsmyoon@amc.seoul.kr.
Tae Hyun KimCenter for Proton Therapy, Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, South Korea.
Jinsung KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710, South Korea.
Min Kyu KangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Daegu, South Korea.
Jinhong JungDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, Kyung Hee University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Sang-Won KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Daegu, South Korea.
Ji Woon YeaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Daegu, South Korea.
Sung Ho ParkDepartment of Neurosurgery, Ulsan University Hospital, Ulsan, South Korea.
Young Suk ParkDivision of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study compared a tablet PC questionnaire with a paper method for reliability and patient preferences in the acquisition of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for patients treated with radiotherapy. By comparing the two modes of PRO administration, we aimed to evaluate the adequacy of using tablet PC questionnaires in future clinical use.

methodsPatients were randomized in a crossover study design using two different methods for PRO entry. A group of 89 patients answered a paper questionnaire followed by the tablet PC version, whereas 89 patients in another group completed the tablet PC questionnaire followed by the paper version. Surveys were performed four times per patient throughout the course of the radiotherapy. The Korean versions of the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI-K) and the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI-K) were used. The primary endpoint of our current study was an assessment of patient preference for the survey method. The proportions of patients preferring each mode of questionnaire were evaluated.

resultsThe proportion of patients who preferred the tablet PC version, paper form, or who had no preference was 52.2, 22.1, and 25.7 %, respectively. More than half of the patients preferred the tablet PC to the paper version in all four surveys. Age, gender, educational status, prior experience of using a tablet PC, and the order of paper to tablet PC administration did not impact patient preferences. Inter-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) between the modes were 0.92 for MDASI-K and 0.94 for BFI-K and ranged from 0.91 to 0.96 on both instruments during the four surveys.

conclusionsA tablet PC-based PRO is an acceptable and reliable method compared with paper-based data collection for Korean patients receiving radiotherapy.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedCross-Over StudiesFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPaperProspective StudiesQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultEquivalenceHealth-related quality of lifePatient-reported outcomesRadiotherapyTablet PC

Identifiers

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.