ArticleBMJ open2016
Electronic capture of patient-reported and clinician-reported outcome measures in an elective orthopaedic setting: a retrospective cohort analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.
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
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Remote usage of digital patient-reported outcome measures for shoulder and elbow pathologies: a systematic review.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026Review
- Prospective monitoring of the clinical implementation of ultrahypofractionated whole-breast radiotherapy using electronic patient-reported outcome measures.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Risk factors for non-compliance of patient reported outcome measures following achilles tendon repair surgery.Journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Educating patients about patient-reported outcomes-are we there yet?Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2024Article
- Patient Engagement Platforms: How Technology Is Impacting Perioperative Communication and Engagement in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 2024Article
- Patient adherence to patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) completion in clinical care: current understanding and future recommendations.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Evaluating the measures in patient-reported outcomes, values and experiences (EMPROVE study): a collaborative audit of PROMs practice in orthopaedic care in the United Kingdom.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2023Article
- The implementation, use and impact of patient reported outcome measures in value-based healthcare programmes: A scoping review.PloS one · 2023Article
- Differential item functioning to validate setting of delivery compatibility in PROMIS-global health.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022Article
- Implementation of an Online Glaucoma-Specific Quality of Life Computerized Adaptive Test System in a US Glaucoma Hospital.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
- Barriers and Facilitators to the International Implementation of Standardized Outcome Measures in Clinical Cleft Practice.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2022Article
- Improving patient engagement, adherence, and satisfaction in lung cancer surgery with implementation of a mobile device platform for patient reported outcomes.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Article
- A real-time electronic symptom monitoring system for patients after discharge following surgery: a pilot study in cancer-related surgery.BMC cancer · 2020Article
- A pilot study of patient reported outcomes evaluating treatment related symptoms and quality of life for men receiving high dose rate brachytherapy combined with hypo-fractionated radiotherapy or hypo-fractionated radiotherapy alone for the treatment of localised prostate cancer.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2019Article
- The facilitators and barriers to implementing patient reported outcome measures in organisations delivering health related services: a systematic review of reviews.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2018Review
- "Patient reported outcomes" following experimental surgery-using telemetry to assess movement in experimental ovine models.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2018Article
- Inflammatory bowel disease registries for collection of patient iron parameters in Europe.World journal of gastroenterology · 2018Review
- Male Sex, Decreased Activity Level, and Higher BMI Associated With Lower Completion of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Following ACL Reconstruction.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2018Article
- Raising the profile of pilot and feasibility studies in relation to the development, evaluation and implementation of patient-reported outcome measures.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine whether an entirely electronic system can be used to capture both patient-reported outcomes (electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures, ePROMs) as well as clinician-validated diagnostic and complexity data in an elective surgical orthopaedic outpatient setting. To examine patients' experience of this system and factors impacting their experience.
designRetrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.
settingSingle centre series. Outpatient clinics at an elective foot and ankle unit in the UK.
participantsAll new adult patients attending elective orthopaedic outpatient clinics over a 32-month period.
interventionsAll patients were invited to complete ePROMs prior to attending their outpatient appointment. At their appointment, those patients who had not completed ePROMs were offered the opportunity to complete it on a tablet device with technical support. Matched diagnostic and complexity data were captured by the treating consultant during the appointment. OUTCOME MEASURES: Capture rates of patient-reported and clinician-reported data. All information and technology (IT) failures, language and disability barriers were captured. Patients were asked to rate their experience of using ePROMs. The scoring systems used included EQ-5D-5L, the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOxFQ) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain score.
resultsOut of 2534 new patients, 2176 (85.9%) completed ePROMs, of whom 1090 (50.09%) completed ePROMs at home/work prior to their appointment. 31.5% used a mobile (smartphone/tablet) device. Clinician-reported data were captured on 2491 patients (98.3%). The mean patient experience score of using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) was 8.55±1.85 out of 10 and 666 patients (30.61%) left comments. Of patients leaving comments, 214 (32.13%) felt ePROMs did not adequately capture their symptoms and these patients had significantly lower patient experience scores (p<0.001).
conclusionsThis study demonstrates the successful implementation of technology into a service improvement programme. Excellent capture rates of ePROMs and clinician-validated diagnostic data can be achieved within a National Health Service setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.