Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30478597›Full record

Trial reportQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2019

A randomised controlled trial comparing completeness of responses of three methods of collecting patient-reported outcome measures in men diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Dewan Md Emdadul Hoque, Arul Earnest, Rasa Ruseckaite, Paula Lorgelly, Fanny Sampurno, Melanie Evans, Sue M Evans

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialEquivalence Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Codesigning a patient support portal with health professionals and men with prostate cancer: An action research study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Dewan Md Emdadul HoqueDEPM, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, The Alfred Centre, Monash University, Level 2, 553 St Kilda Rd, Melbourne, 3004, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8219-9196
Arul EarnestDEPM, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, The Alfred Centre, Monash University, Level 2, 553 St Kilda Rd, Melbourne, 3004, VIC, Australia.
Rasa RuseckaiteDEPM, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, The Alfred Centre, Monash University, Level 2, 553 St Kilda Rd, Melbourne, 3004, VIC, Australia.
Paula LorgellyOffice of Health Economics, London, UK.
Fanny SampurnoDEPM, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, The Alfred Centre, Monash University, Level 2, 553 St Kilda Rd, Melbourne, 3004, VIC, Australia.
Melanie EvansDEPM, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, The Alfred Centre, Monash University, Level 2, 553 St Kilda Rd, Melbourne, 3004, VIC, Australia.
Sue M EvansDEPM, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, The Alfred Centre, Monash University, Level 2, 553 St Kilda Rd, Melbourne, 3004, VIC, Australia. sue.evans@monash.edu.

Funding

Monash Graduate Scholarship (MGS) 25762931Monash International Postgraduate Research Scholarship (MIPRS) 25762931Monash Partners Academic Health Science Clinical fellowship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of the study was to compare completeness, timeliness and cost of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) collection using telephone, email and post in men with prostate cancer.

methodsA parallel, three-arm randomised controlled equivalence trial. 1168 patients were randomised to telephone (n = 295), postal (n = 388) and email (n = 385) arms. Participants were asked to provide self-reported responses for 26 items of Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite. Cost and resource data were collected from a provider perspective.

resultsEquivalence tests showed no difference in completeness in the three arms within a 10% equivalence margin. Men diagnosed in public hospitals were less likely to complete the survey compared to those in private hospitals, OR = 0.19 (95% CI 0.04-0.89) (p = 0.035). The email survey required significantly less time to complete than telephone and postal methods [median time of 2 min (IQR 1,8) vs. 7 min (IQR 6,9) vs. 10 min (IQR 9,12), respectively (p < 0.001)]. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for email compared to telephone was AUD$1.90, cost-effective if users valued an additional 1% improvement in survey completion greater than AUD$1.90.

conclusionEmail method took less time and cost and should be used as the primary PROMs collection, with telephone if men without email or do not respond to email.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresAgedData CollectionHumansMaleMiddle AgedProstatic NeoplasmsQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesData collection methodsEmailIntention to treatPatient-reported outcomesPostalRandomised controlled trialTelephone

Identifiers

PMID30478597

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.