ArticleJMIR cancer2021
Effect of Collaborative Review of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes for Shared Reporting in Breast Cancer Patients: Descriptive Comparative Study.
Article in JMIR cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 8 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.
Randomized Controlled Single-blind Trial to Evaluate the Mobile Tracking of Symptoms in Ambulatory Breast Cancer Patients
Efficacy of the "Consilium" Smartphone App for Detecting Symptoms and Treatment Side Effects in Cancer Patients Depending on Form of Medication Application, Age and Outpatient Characteristics: Observational Study
Evaluation of the Medidux™ Digital Health Application in Patients With HER2-positive Breast Cancer During Chemotherapy in Combination With HER2-targeted Therapy (Including Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors [TKI]) or an Antibody-drug Conjugate Therapy: a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Impact of Patient-Generated Health Data From Mobile Health Technologies on Health Care Management and Clinical Decision-Making: Narrative Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) programs for monitoring symptoms among patients treated with immunotherapy: a scoping review.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2024Article
- Impact of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes on Unplanned Consultations and Hospitalizations in Patients With Cancer Undergoing Systemic Therapy: Results of a Patient-Reported Outcome Study Compared With Matched Retrospective Data.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Article
- Towards an early warning system for monitoring of cancer patients using hybrid interactive machine learning.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Article
- Article
- The Effect of Collaborative Reviews of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes on the Congruence of Patient- and Clinician-Reported Toxicity in Cancer Patients Receiving Systemic Therapy: Prospective, Multicenter, Observational Clinical Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Observational
- Metastatic Salivary Duct Carcinoma with ERBB2 Amplification and Sequential Response to Ado-Trastuzumab Emtansine and Neratinib: A Case Report.Case reports in oncologyArticle
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital monitoring of treatment-related symptoms and self-reported patient outcomes is important for the quality of care among cancer patients. As mobile devices are ubiquitous nowadays, the collection of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) is gaining momentum. So far, data are lacking on the modalities that contribute to the quantity and quality of ePROs.
objectiveThe objective of our study was to compare the utilization of two versions of a subsequently employed mobile app for electronic monitoring of PROs and to test our hypothesis that a shared review of symptoms in patient-physician collaboration has an impact on the number of data entries.
methodsThe Consilium Care app engages cancer patients to standardize reporting of well-being and treatment-related symptoms in outpatient settings. For descriptive comparison of the utilization of two slightly different app versions, data were obtained from an early breast cancer trial (version 1 of the app, n=86) and an ongoing study including patients with advanced disease (version 2 of the app, n=106). In both app versions, patients and doctors were allowed to share the information from data entries during consultations. Version 2 of the app, however, randomly selected symptoms that required a detailed and shared regular patient-doctor review in order to focus on the collection and appropriate interpretation regarding awareness and guidance for severity grading. The numbers and types of symptom entries, satisfaction with both app versions, and patients' perceived effects during consultations were included for analysis.
resultsSymptom severity grading was performed according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) using a horizontal slider and was indicated in descriptive terminology in both apps, while a graphical display facilitated the illustration of symptom history charts. In total, 192 patients electronically reported 11,437 data entries on well-being and 33,380 data entries on individual symptoms. Overall, 628 (of 872 intended) requested patient-doctor symptom reviews were performed in version 2 of the app. Both the amount of data entries per patient and day for well-being (version 1 vs version 2: 0.3 vs 1.0; P<.001) and symptoms (version 1 vs version 2: 1.3 vs 1.9; P=.04) appeared significantly increased in version 2 of the app. Overall satisfaction with both app versions was high, although version 2 of the app was perceived to be more helpful in general.
conclusionsVersion 2 of the app showed much better results than version 1 of the app. A request for collaborative patient-doctor symptom review is likely to affect the number of digital symptom data entries. This app shows high potential to improve the patient-doctor experience.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02004496; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02004496 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03578731; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03578731.
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.