Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39621108›Full record

SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2024

Effectiveness of ePRO-based symptom management for cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.

Lin Hang, Jieping Zhang, Zhongjie Lu, Jinming Xu, Yuying Chen

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Comment on: "Effectiveness of ePRO‑based symptom management for cancer patients: a systematic review and meta‑analysis of randomized controlled studies".Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lin HangDepartment of Nursing, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310003, China.
Jieping ZhangDepartment of Nursing, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310003, China. 1320874953@qq.com.
Zhongjie LuDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310003, China.
Jinming XuDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310003, China.
Yuying ChenDepartment of Nursing, Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, 225001, China.

Funding

General research program of medical and health in Zhejiang Province 2023559432
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo systematically synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO)-based symptom management on readmission rate, quality of life, symptom burden, anxiety, depression, and mortality in adult cancer patients.

methodA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to the PRISMA guideline in PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Scopus for studies of randomized controlled trials reporting ePRO-based symptom management from January 1st, 2018, to May 31st, 2023. Two reviewers independently assessed risk-of-bias using Cochrane Risk-of-Bias version 2 and extracted the data. Subgroup analysis was conducted to identify the source of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis was performed by using the leave-one-out method. The study protocol was registered on the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (INPLASY) (DOI: https://doi.org/10.37766/inplasy2023.6.0010 ).

resultsA total of 10 studies were included in our review, comprising a total of 5321 participants. The results showed ePRO-based symptom management can improve quality of life (QOL) (SMD = 4.42, 95% CI 0.14 to 8.69, P = 0.04) in cancer patients. No significant differences in the impact on the improvement of readmission rate (RR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.04, P = 0.15), symptom burden (SMD = 1.23, 95% CI - 1.34 to 3.79, P = 0.35), anxiety (SMD =  - 0.00, 95% CI - 0.34 to 0.34, P = 0.99), depression (SMD = 0.03, 95% CI - 0.17 to 0.24, P = 0.74), and mortality (RR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.83, P = 0.36) between the two groups. In the subgroup analysis, readmission rates more than 30 days were significantly lower in the intervention group compared to the control group (relative rate (RR) = 0.85, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.99, P = 0.03). Also, the intervention group's QOL significantly improved compared to the control group when assessed within 1 month after the intervention (SMD = 4.35, 95% CI 3.75 to 4.94, P < 0.00001). In the sensitivity analysis, it was found that the results for readmission rates and quality of life (QOL) were unstable, indicating that further research is needed in the future.

conclusionCancer patients often have different symptoms. Symptom management in cancer patients is an emerging topic. However, due to the limited numbers of included studies, the long-term effect of ePRO-based symptom management still needed to be validated. REGISTRATION DETAILS: inplasy (DOI: https://doi.org/10.37766/inplasy2023.6.0010 ).

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeAnxietyDepressionDigital HealthHumansPatient ReadmissionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCancerEPROsMeta-analysisSymptom managementSystematic review

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.