Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35412466›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2022

Developing a Mobile Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Administration System to Capture Postradiation Toxicity in Oncology: Usability and Feasibility Study.

Jody Underwood, Susan McCloskey, Ann Raldow, Amar Kishan, Chad Zalkin, Daniel Navarro, Lisa Scott Holt, Andrew Webb, Kathleen A Lynch, Thomas M Atkinson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Mobile applications in radiation oncology-current choices and future potentials.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. 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.

Jody Underwood *Intelligent Automation, Inc, Rockville, MD, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7084-5488
Susan McCloskeyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0733-505X
Ann Raldow *Department of Radiation Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8996-6810
Amar Kishan *Department of Radiation Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7437-6591
Chad Zalkin *Intelligent Automation, Inc, Rockville, MD, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5229-8150
Daniel NavarroIntelligent Automation, Inc, Rockville, MD, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9922-5696
Lisa Scott Holt *Intelligent Automation, Inc, Rockville, MD, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3779-0961
Andrew Webb *Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0377-1754
Kathleen A Lynch *Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2174-1604
Thomas M Atkinson *Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4965-3913

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate self-reported symptomatic toxicity documentation via the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) is essential throughout cancer treatment to ensure safety and understand therapeutic efficacy. However, the capture of accurate toxicities from patients undergoing radiation therapy is challenging because this is generally provided only at the time of scheduled visits.

objectiveThis study seeks to establish the usability and feasibility of a mobile PRO-CTCAE Administration System (mPROS) to capture toxicities related to radiation therapy.

methodsEnglish-speaking adult patients who were undergoing radiation therapy for cancer were enrolled and given a brief demonstration of the Say All Your Symptoms (SAYS) and Symptom Tracking Entry Program (STEP) interfaces of the mPROS app, followed by a patient-use phase where patient actions were observed as they navigated mPROS to enter toxicities. Patient feedback was captured via a semistructured interview and brief questionnaire.

resultsWe enrolled 25 patients (age: mean 60.7 years; females: n=13, 52%; White patients: n=13; 52%; non-Hispanic patients: n=19, 76%; college graduates: n=17, 68%). Patients almost equally preferred the SAYS (n=14, 56%) or STEP (n=11, 44%) interfaces, with 21 patients (84%) agreeing that they would use mPROS to report their symptoms to their health care team and 19 patients (76%) agreeing that they would recommend mPROS to others.

conclusionsThe mPROS app is usable and feasible for facilitating the patient reporting of radiation therapy-related symptomatic toxicities. A revised version of mPROS that incorporates patient input and includes electronic health record integration is being developed and validated as part of a multicenter trial.

Indexed as

eHealthmobile administration systemmobile appsmobile healthneoplasmspatient outcome assessmentpublic health informaticsradiation oncologyradiation therapytoxicity

Identifiers

PMID35412466
PMCPMC9044154

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.