Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36240475›Full record

ArticleJCO oncology practice2022

Feasibility of Large-Scale Implementation of an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Remote Monitoring System for Patients on Active Treatment at a Community Cancer Center.

Nathan I Cherny, Christina M Parrinello, Lavi Kwiatkowsky, Jeff Hunnicutt, Thaddeus Beck, Eric Schaefer, Tracy Thurow, Michael Kolodziej

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO oncology practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes in immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: addressing gaps, capturing patient experience, and advancing the field.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. 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

8 authors.

Nathan I ChernyShaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.ORCID 0000-0003-1976-8952
Christina M ParrinelloPine Mountain Consulting, Redding, CT.
Lavi KwiatkowskyCanopy, New York, New York.
Jeff HunnicuttHighlands Oncology Group, Fayetteville, AR.
Thaddeus BeckHighlands Oncology Group, Fayetteville, AR.ORCID 0000-0002-3341-9903
Eric SchaeferHighlands Oncology Group, Fayetteville, AR.
Tracy ThurowHighlands Oncology Group, Fayetteville, AR.
Michael KolodziejCanopy, New York, New York.ORCID 0000-0002-9136-0575

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe use of digital symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been shown to improve patient outcomes. The evidence of benefit has been largely derived from research studies. The feasibility of adopting this technology in the real-world setting is unknown.

methodsWe report on the clinical implementation of a proprietary electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO)-based digital symptom monitoring platform at the Highlands Oncology Group practice, a large community oncology practice. We present here our experience with patient enrollment, engagement, and retention; reasons for discontinued use; proportion of reports generating alerts and containing severe symptoms; and the responses to alerts including nursing telephone consultations and urgent office visits.

resultsOver an approximately 17-month period, 923 patients were successfully enrolled. Patients enrolled from June 20, 2020, through November 30, 2021, with follow-up through February 28, 2022. Retention rates at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months were 94%, 88%, 73%, and 67%, respectively, with greater retention at 12 months in patients age 65 years or older. Few patients discontinued use for reasons related to the platform (n = 47; 5%). Of the 25,311 ePRO reports submitted, 49% (n = 12,334) exceeded the predefined alert thresholds and 8% (n = 1,920) included severe symptoms. The nursing team responded within 24 hours by telephone to 31.2% (n = 3,910) of all reports with alerts. Of reports with severe symptoms, 72.7% (n = 1,395) received a call. Only 6.4% (n = 249) of phone calls required an office evaluation within 72 hours of the report.

conclusionThis single-center experience indicates that an ePRO-based digital symptom monitoring platform can be effectively implemented at a large scale with a high level of long-term patient engagement. Most reports could be effectively resolved by nurses, and physician intervention was infrequently required.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAgedHumansMedical OncologySoftwareTelephone

Identifiers

PMID36240475
PMCPMC9750604

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.