ArticleCancer science2022
Feasibility study on collecting patient-reported outcomes from breast cancer patients using the LINE-ePRO system.
Article in Cancer science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Feasibility of an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes Platform Integrating Electronic Health Records and a Mobile Messaging App in Breast Cancer Radiotherapy: Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- A Preliminary Study Introducing Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome (ePRO) Using Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) in Post-marketing Surveillance in Japan.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Observational
- Article
- Patient satisfaction on prescription refill systems for breast cancer patients in Japan using a digital self-administered survey.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2025Article
- Convalescence after radical orchiectomy: Detailing surgical recovery with a novel electronic patient reported outcome (ePRO) platform.Urologic oncology · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Feasibility study on collecting patient-reported outcomes from breast cancer patients using the LINE-ePRO system.Cancer science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Due to the increasing complexity of cancer treatment, ensuring safety and maintaining the quality of life during treatment are important issues. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in oncology are essential for assessing patient symptoms. A feasibility study was undertaken on breast cancer patients by building a PRO data collection system based on LINE, one of the most popular social network service applications in Japan. In this study, one or more predefined PRO questions for each breast cancer patient's clinical situation were sent to the patient's LINE application daily. The patient selected a predefined answer by tapping the screen, but no free-text answers were allowed. Seventy-three patients were enrolled. The median observation period was 435 days (84-656 days), and the total number of PROs collected was 16,417, with a mean of 224.9 reports per patient. Patients on adjuvant endocrine therapy were notified of 2.5 questions per week, and the median number of responses per week and response rate were 2.387 (1.687-11.627) and 95.5%, respectively. Analyzing the results by age group, the number of responses from those aged 60 and above was equal to or higher than that of the younger age group. It was also possible to track each patient's PROs accurately. These results suggested that the design of the system, based on an application used daily, instead of using specifically prepared applications for collecting electronic PROs, was the reason for the favorable acceptance from patients and the satisfactory response rate from all age groups, including the elderly.
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.