Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36520526›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2022

Sample Bias in Web-Based Patient-Generated Health Data of Dutch Patients With Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor: Survey Study.

Anne Dirkson, Dide den Hollander, Suzan Verberne, Ingrid Desar, Olga Husson, Winette T A van der Graaf, Astrid Oosten, Anna K L Reyners, Neeltje Steeghs, Wouter van Loon and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract 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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 46% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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

13 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Anne DirksonLeiden Institute of Advanced Computer Science, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4332-0296
Dide den HollanderDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2077-2633
Suzan VerberneLeiden Institute of Advanced Computer Science, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9609-9505
Ingrid DesarDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0945-8299
Olga HussonDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1387-8686
Winette T A van der GraafDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7549-3338
Astrid OostenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2850-0501
Anna K L ReynersDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1678-7816
Neeltje SteeghsDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2989-2279
Wouter van LoonDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4701-9265
Gerard van OortmerssenLeiden Institute of Advanced Computer Science, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0661-0833
Hans GelderblomDepartment of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9270-8636
Wessel KraaijLeiden Institute of Advanced Computer Science, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7797-619X
Leiden University · NLErasmus MC · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NLThe Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncreasingly, social media is being recognized as a potential resource for patient-generated health data, for example, for pharmacovigilance. Although the representativeness of the web-based patient population is often noted as a concern, studies in this field are limited.

objectiveThis study aimed to investigate the sample bias of patient-centered social media in Dutch patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST).

methodsA population-based survey was conducted in the Netherlands among 328 patients with GIST diagnosed 2-13 years ago to investigate their digital communication use with fellow patients. A logistic regression analysis was used to analyze clinical and demographic differences between forum users and nonusers.

resultsOverall, 17.9% (59/328) of survey respondents reported having contact with fellow patients via social media. Moreover, 78% (46/59) of forum users made use of GIST patient forums. We found no statistically significant differences for age, sex, socioeconomic status, and time since diagnosis between forum users (n=46) and nonusers (n=273). Patient forum users did differ significantly in (self-reported) treatment phase from nonusers (P=.001). Of the 46 forum users, only 2 (4%) were cured and not being monitored; 3 (7%) were on adjuvant, curative treatment; 19 (41%) were being monitored after adjuvant treatment; and 22 (48%) were on palliative treatment. In contrast, of the 273 patients who did not use disease-specific forums to communicate with fellow patients, 56 (20.5%) were cured and not being monitored, 31 (11.3%) were on curative treatment, 139 (50.9%) were being monitored after treatment, and 42 (15.3%) were on palliative treatment. The odds of being on a patient forum were 2.8 times as high for a patient who is being monitored compared with a patient that is considered cured. The odds of being on a patient forum were 1.9 times as high for patients who were on curative (adjuvant) treatment and 10 times as high for patients who were in the palliative phase compared with patients who were considered cured. Forum users also reported a lower level of social functioning (84.8 out of 100) than nonusers (93.8 out of 100; P=.008).

conclusionsForum users showed no particular bias on the most important demographic variables of age, sex, socioeconomic status, and time since diagnosis. This may reflect the narrowing digital divide. Overrepresentation and underrepresentation of patients with GIST in different treatment phases on social media should be taken into account when sourcing patient forums for patient-generated health data. A further investigation of the sample bias in other web-based patient populations is warranted.

Indexed as

patient forumpharmacovigilancerare cancerrepresentativenesssample biassocial media

Identifiers

PMID36520526
PMCPMC9801270
OpenAlexW4311609625

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.