ArticleTransplantation and cellular therapy2022
Adding Centralized Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Data Collection to an Established International Clinical Outcomes Registry.
Article in Transplantation and cellular therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- A digital biomarker dataset from hematopoietic cell transplant caregivers and patients.Scientific data · 2026Article
- The Clinical Utility of Real-Time Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cell Therapy Recipients.Transplantation and cellular therapy · 2025Observational
- Article
- Role of the CIBMTR biorepository and registry in precision transplantation research.Bone marrow transplantation · 2025Review
- Challenges and Opportunities in the Care of Hematopoietic Cell Transplant Survivors in the Modern Era.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025Review
- Current Trends and Outcomes in Cellular Therapy Activity in the United States, Including Prospective Patient-Reported Outcomes Data Collection in the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research Registry.Transplantation and cellular therapy · 2024Article
- Psychosocial Assessment Practices for Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: A National Survey Study.Research square · 2023Article
- Multi-Stakeholder Qualitative Interviews to Inform Measurement of Patient Reported Outcomes After CAR-T.Transplantation and cellular therapy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The importance of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in cellular therapies, including hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is highlighted in this study. Longitudinal collection of PROs in a registry is recommended for several reasons, yet to date, PROs are not routinely collected from HCT patients to augment clinical registry data. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of electronic PRO data collection by a national clinical outcomes registry, by assessing differences between who does and does not report PROs. We conducted a cross-sectional pilot collection of PROs from HCT recipients after treatment using computer-adapted tests from the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS). We implemented centralized data collection through the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) among patients who underwent HCT for myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), were at least 6 months post-HCT, and spoke English or Spanish. The main objective was identifying patient, disease, and transplant-related differences associated with completion of electronic PROs. Patients were excluded from analysis if they were determined to be ineligible (deceased, did not speak English or Spanish, refused to be contacted by the CIBMTR). A total of 163 patients were contacted and potentially eligible to participate; of these, 92 (56%) enrolled and 89 (55%) completed the PRO assessment. The most frequent reason for incomplete surveys was inability to contact patients (n = 88), followed by declining to participate in the study (n = 37). There were no sociodemographic or age differences between those who completed the PRO survey (n = 89) and eligible nonresponders (n = 155). Patient scores were within 3 points of the US average of 50 for all symptoms and functioning except physical functioning. Responders and nonresponders did not exhibit meaningfully different sociodemographic characteristics. Difficulty contacting patients posed the greatest barrier and also provided the greatest opportunity for improvement. Once enrolled, survey completion was high. These results support standardizing centralized PRO data collection through the CIBMTR registry.
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.