ArticleEuropean burn journal2022
Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Burn Scar Rehabilitation: A Guide to Implementation and Evaluation.
Article in European burn journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- Article
- What Outcomes Matter Most to Paediatric Burn Patients and Their Caregivers: A Comparison of Short-Term and Long-Term Priorities.European burn journal · 2024Article
- Measurement Equivalence and Feasibility of the Electronic and Paper Versions of the POSAS, EQ-5D, and DLQI: A Randomized Crossover Trial.European burn journal · 2024Article
- The Short- and Long-Term Outcome Priorities of a Western Australian Adult Burn Population.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In burn scar rehabilitation, electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) are increasingly being used in research and clinical settings as part of patient- and family-centred care. These measures can identify patients' needs and monitor the therapeutic progress of both adults and children. The feedback of information from ePROMs to clinicians treating patients with scarring and psychosocial issues may have therapeutic benefits. However, testing the effectiveness of ePROMs used in the routine clinical care of patients with burn scarring is in its infancy, and one of the greatest challenges remains the implementation of ePROMs in real-world clinical settings. The aim of this paper is to provide a guide for clinicians and researchers involved in burn scar rehabilitation to assist in implementing ePROMs in clinical settings. The guide outlines strategies, processes, and considerations for ePROM implementation and the accompanying resources. Two real-world case studies of ePROM implementation are presented in burn scar clinics in Belgium and Australia. Additionally, ten recommendations for the implementation of ePROMs are provided based on research evidence and the lessons learned by the authors. The information provided should pave the way forward for using and testing these ePROMs in research and practice.
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.