Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27637366›Full record

ArticleGynecologic oncology2016

Electronic patient-reported outcomes from home in patients recovering from major gynecologic cancer surgery: A prospective study measuring symptoms and health-related quality of life.

Renee A Cowan, Rudy S Suidan, Vaagn Andikyan, Youssef A Rezk, M Heather Einstein, Kaity Chang, Jeanne Carter, Oliver Zivanovic, Elizabeth J Jewell, Nadeem R Abu-Rustum and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

12 authors.

Renee A CowanMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Rudy S SuidanThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Vaagn AndikyanIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Youssef A RezkUniversity of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA.
M Heather EinsteinUniversity of Connecticut School of Medicine, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT, USA.
Kaity ChangMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Jeanne CarterMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Oliver ZivanovicMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Elizabeth J JewellMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Nadeem R Abu-RustumMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Ethan BaschLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Dennis S ChiMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: chid@mskcc.org.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe previously reported on the feasibility of a Web-based system to capture patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the immediate postoperative period. The purpose of this study was to update the experience of these patients and assess patient and provider satisfaction and feedback regarding the system.

methodsThis is a prospective cohort study of patients scheduled to undergo laparotomy for presumed gynecologic malignancy. Patients completed a Web-based Symptom Tracking and Reporting (STAR) questionnaire preoperatively and weekly during a 6-week postoperative period. Email alerts were sent to study nurses when concerning patient responses were entered. The patient and the nurse assessments of STAR's usefulness were measured via an exit survey.

resultsThe study enrolled 96 eligible patients. Of these, 71 patients (74%) completed at least four of seven total sessions. Of the patients who completed the exit satisfaction survey, 98% found STAR easy to use; 84% found it useful; and 82% would recommend it to other patients. Despite positive feedback from patients, clinical personnel found that the STAR system increased their current workload without enhancing patient care.

conclusionsApplication of an electronic program for PROs in those recovering from major gynecologic cancer surgery is feasible, and acceptable to most patients. While most clinicians did not find STAR clinically helpful, the majority of patients reported a positive experience with the system and would recommend its use. The program helped many patients feel more empowered in their postoperative recovery.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleGenital Neoplasms, FemaleHumansMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionProspective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesGynecologic cancerGynecologic surgeryPatient-reported outcomesQuality of life

Identifiers

PMID27637366
PMCPMC5535805

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.