Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33574144›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2021

Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures in melanoma clinical quality registries: a systematic review.

Zachary Blood, Anh Tran, Lauren Caleo, Robyn Saw, Mbathio Dieng, Mark Shackleton, H Peter Soyer, Chris Arnold, Graham J Mann, Rachael L Morton

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Understanding factors impacting patient-reported outcome measures integration in routine clinical practice: an umbrella review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

10 authors.

Zachary BloodNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Anh TranNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Lauren CaleoNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Robyn SawMelanoma Institute Australia, North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Mbathio DiengNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Mark ShackletonDepartment of Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7673-4655
H Peter SoyerThe University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Saint Lucia, Queensland, Australia.
Chris ArnoldSkin Health Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Graham J MannWestern Clinical School, Westmead Millennium Institute, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Rachael L MortonNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Rachael.morton@ctc.usyd.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-7834-0572

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo identify patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in clinical quality registries, for people with cutaneous melanoma, to inform a new Australian Melanoma Clinical Outcomes Registry; and describe opportunities and challenges of routine PROM/PREM collection, especially in primary care.

designSystematic review. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Which PROMs and PREMs are used in clinical quality registries for people with cutaneous melanoma, how they are collected, frequency of collection, participant recruitment methods and funding models for each registry.

results1134 studies were identified from MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects databases and TUFTS Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, alongside grey literature, from database inception to 5th February 2020. Following screening, 14 studies were included, identifying four relevant registries: Dutch Melanoma Registry, Adelphi Real-World Disease-Specific Programme (Melanoma), Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Initial treatment and Long-term Evaluation of Survivorship Registry, and Cancer Experience Registry. These used seven PROMs: EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Functional Assessment of Cancer-General (FACT-G) and FACT-Melanoma (FACT-M), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Cancer 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), Fatigue Assessment Scale Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Information System-29 and one PREM; EORTC QLQ-Information Module 26. PROMs/PREMs in registries were reported to improve transparency of care; facilitate clinical auditing for quality assessment; enable cost-effectiveness analyses and create large-scale research platforms. Challenges included resource burden for data entry and potential collection bias toward younger, more affluent respondents. Feedback from patients with melanoma highlighted the relevance of PROMs/PREMs in assessing patient outcomes and patient experiences.

conclusionsClinical registries indicate PROMs/PREMs for melanoma care can be incorporated and address important gaps, however cost and collection bias may limit generalisability. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018086737.

Indexed as

MelanomaSkin NeoplasmsAustraliaHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeRegistriesclinical auditdermatological tumourspublic health

Identifiers

PMID33574144
PMCPMC7880114

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.