ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2016
Collecting, Integrating, and Disseminating Patient-Reported Outcomes for Research in a Learning Healthcare System.
Article in EGEMS (Washington, DC), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automating Collection of Pain-Related Patient-Reported Outcomes to Enhance Clinical Care and Research.Journal of general internal medicine · 2018Trial
- Clinical Research Informatics: a Decade-in-Review.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024Review
- Utilizing a learning health system to capture real-world patient data: Application of the reliable change index to evaluate and improve the outcome of a pain rehabilitation program.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2024Article
- CHOIRBM: An R package for exploratory data analysis and interactive visualization of pain patient body map data.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Whole Body Pain Distribution and Risk Factors for Widespread Pain Among Patients Presenting with Abdominal Pain: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Pain and therapy · 2022Article
- Examining perspectives on the adoption and use of computer-based patient-reported outcomes among clinicians and health professionals: a Q methodology study.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Review
- Phenotyping severity of patient-centered outcomes using clinical notes: A prostate cancer use case.Learning health systems · 2020Article
- Identification of patients with hemoglobin SS/SβBlood advances · 2018Article
- Capturing a Patient-Reported Measure of Physical Function Through an Online Electronic Health Record Patient Portal in an Ambulatory Clinic: Implementation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2018Article
- Clinical Research Informatics: Contributions from 2016.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2017Review
- Finding "truth" across different data sources.Israel journal of health policy research · 2017Article
- Article
- Development and validation of the Collaborative Health Outcomes Information Registry body map.Pain reportsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAdvances in health policy, research, and information technology have converged to increase the electronic collection and use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Therefore, it is important to share lessons learned in implementing PROs in research information systems. CASE DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this case study is to describe a novel information system for electronic PROs and lessons learned in implementing that system to support research in an academic health center. The system incorporates freely available and commercial software and involves clinical and research workflows that support the collection, transformation, and research use of PRO data. The software and processes that comprise the system serve three main functions, (i) collecting electronic PROs in clinical care, (ii) integrating PRO data with non-patient generated clinical data, and (iii) disseminating data to researchers through the institution's research informatics infrastructure, including the i2b2 (Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside) system. STRATEGIES: Our successful design and implementation was driven by three overarching strategies. First, we selected and implemented multiple interfaced technologies to support PRO collection, management, and research use. Second, we aimed to use standardized approaches to measuring PROs, sending PROs between systems, and disseminating PROs. Finally, we focused on using technologies and processes that aligned with existing clinical research information management strategies within our organization.
conclusionThese experiences and lessons may help future implementers and researchers enhance the scale and sustainable use of systems for research use of PROs.
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.