ArticleJAMIA open2023
Selecting patient-reported outcome measures for a patient-facing technology.
Article in JAMIA open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for breast cancer patients who are undertaking adjuvant endocrine therapy.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Pooled it
- A tailored maturity model for REDCap-based patient-facing technology: revealing development stages and guiding future evolution.JAMIA open · 2026Review
- Building Patient-Facing Technology: A REDCap-Based Approach.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2025Article
- Enhancing Patient Medication Safety at Home: A Patient-Facing Technology Architecture Integrating REDCap, Visualization Dashboards, and an AI- Driven Chatbot.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: This article provides insight into our process and considerations for selecting patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) designed for self-reporting symptoms and quality-of-life among breast cancer (BCA) patients undergoing oral anticancer agent treatment via a patient-facing technology (PFT) platform. Methods: Following established guidelines, we conducted a thorough assessment of a specific set of PROMs, comparing their content to identify the most suitable options for studying BCA patients. Results: We recommend utilizing the combination of EORTC QLQ-C30 + EORTC QLQ-BR45 as the preferred instrument, especially when developing a dedicated "breast cancer-only" application. Discussion: When developing and maintaining a dashboard for a PFT platform that includes multiple cancer types, it is important to consider the feasibility of interface design and workload. To achieve this, we recommend using PRO-CTCAE+PROMIS 10 GH for the PFT. Moreover, it is important to consider adding ad hoc items to complement the chosen PROM(s). Conclusion: This article describes our efforts to identify PROMs for self-reported data while considering patient and developer burdens, providing guidance to PFT developers facing similar challenges in PROM selection.
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.