Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36915023›Full record

Trial reportThe Journal of surgical research2023

Access to Results of Patient Reported Outcome Surveys Does Not Improve Survey Response Rates.

Sudheer Vemuru, Shelby Smith, Kathryn Colborn, Victoria Huynh, Laura Leonard, Levi Bonnell, Laura Scherer, Dan Matlock, Clara Lee, Simon Kim and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Journal of surgical research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Eligibility definitions and response rate accuracy in studies using routinely collected PROMs: a systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. 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

11 authors.

Sudheer VemuruDepartment of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado.
Shelby SmithDepartment of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado; Department of Biostatistics and Informatics, University of Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado.
Kathryn ColbornDepartment of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado; Department of Biostatistics and Informatics, University of Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado.
Victoria HuynhDepartment of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado.
Laura LeonardDepartment of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado.
Levi BonnellUniversity of Colorado Cancer Center, Population Health Shared Resource, Aurora, Colorado.
Laura SchererAdult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science (ACCORDS), University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado.
Dan MatlockDepartment of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado.
Clara LeeDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio.
Simon KimDepartment of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado.
Sarah TevisDepartment of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado. Electronic address: sarah.tevis@cuanschutz.edu.

Funding

University of Colorado Cancer Center Support Grant - Lung Cancer Patient-Derived Xenografts with Autologous Human Immune SystemsP30CA046934 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI James V Degregori · 1988 to 2026
$117.0M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA046934
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn this embedded substudy of a longitudinal, randomized controlled trial, we sought to evaluate the effects of patient engagement and results feedback on longitudinal patient-reported outcome (PRO) survey completion rates.

methodsNewly diagnosed stage 0-III breast cancer patients seen at an academic breast center between June 2019 and December 2021 were invited to participate in a longitudinal PRO study. Participants were emailed the BREAST-Q survey, a validated PRO scale, preoperatively and at regular intervals during their postoperative course. Patients were randomized into the intervention group, who received survey results upon completion, or the control group, who received no feedback. The primary endpoint was postoperative survey completion rate. An intention to treat analysis was performed and a quasi-Poisson regression was used to compare rates of longitudinal survey completion between the two groups.

resultsOf the 253 patients offered the preoperative survey, 115 were in the intervention group and 138 were in the control group. Postoperative survey completion rate was 54% for the intervention group and 47% for the control group. There was no significant difference in longitudinal postoperative survey completion rate between the two groups (rate ratio 1.10; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93-1.31).

conclusionsIn this prospective randomized controlled study, patients did not complete surveys at a higher rate when their survey results were shared with them, suggesting that viewing these results without appropriate clinical context does not generate significant enhancement in patient engagement. Effective interventions to improve survey response rate must be identified to better evaluate PROs.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresResearch DesignHumansProspective StudiesPatient-centered carePatient engagementPatient-reported outcomesSurvey response rate

Identifiers

PMID36915023
PMCPMC10563002

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.