Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39630298›Full record

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

Feasibility and usefulness of symptom monitoring with electronic patient-reported outcomes: an experience at single-center outpatient oncology clinic.

Saiko Kurosawa, Kumiko Koike, Tsunemi Arai, Sonomi Yoshida, Misato Ito, Yuki Kuriyama, Masayuki Kitahara, Takashi Rokuhara, Takuhiro Yamaguchi, Nobumichi Takeuchi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Re-evaluation of current status and needs of long-term follow-up clinics for hematopoietic cell transplant survivors: results of a nationwide survey in Japan.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    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

10 authors.

Saiko KurosawaDepartment of Oncology, Ina Central Hospital, 1313-1 Koshiro-Kubo, Ina, Nagano, 396-8555, Japan. skurosaw@inahp.jp.
Kumiko KoikeNursing Division, Ina Central Hospital, Ina, Japan.
Tsunemi AraiNursing Division, Ina Central Hospital, Ina, Japan.
Sonomi YoshidaNursing Division, Ina Central Hospital, Ina, Japan.
Misato ItoNursing Division, Ina Central Hospital, Ina, Japan.
Yuki KuriyamaNursing Division, Ina Central Hospital, Ina, Japan.
Masayuki KitaharaPharmaceutical Division, Ina Central Hospital, Ina, Japan.
Takashi RokuharaPharmaceutical Division, Ina Central Hospital, Ina, Japan.
Takuhiro YamaguchiDivision of Biostatistics, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan.
Nobumichi TakeuchiDepartment of Oncology, Ina Central Hospital, 1313-1 Koshiro-Kubo, Ina, Nagano, 396-8555, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe benefit of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in routine oncology practice is increasingly recognized. This study aimed to develop a team-based monitoring and intervention system using electronic PRO (ePRO) and to evaluate its impact at an outpatient oncology clinic.

methodsPatients receiving chemotherapy at our department were eligible for this study. Those who had access to a smartphone or tablet (Bring Your Own Device [BYOD]) and consented participated, and reported 28 symptoms weekly via 3H P-guardian downloaded on their BYOD. E-mail alerts were sent to attending healthcare providers when participants reported at least grade 3 severity for any of nine symptoms (decreased appetite, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, shortness of breath, pain, insomnia, fatigue, and sadness), which prompted interventions. Comparisons of overall survival (OS), emergency room visits, and hospitalizations were conducted using propensity scores.

resultsAmong 203 patients who received chemotherapy from September 2021 to August 2023, 77 participated in ePRO monitoring. The overall response rate was 55% (1991 valid responses out of a total of 3597 expected time points), and the median individual response rate was 66% (range, 0-100%). Of 1991 valid responses, 250 (13%) prompted alerts, and most interventions were initiated by making telephone calls. OS and other clinical outcomes were better in ePRO participants compared with non-participants, but these outcomes did not differ significantly between the ePRO and pre-ePRO eras.

conclusionsIt was feasible to develop a multi-professional team-based monitoring and intervention system using ePRO at a single-center outpatient oncology clinic. Our results indicate that weekly monitoring of ePRO, along with corresponding interventions, may benefit patients receiving chemotherapy.

Indexed as

Feasibility StudiesNeoplasmsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAmbulatory Care FacilitiesAntineoplastic AgentsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedAntineoplastic AgentsePROOncologyPatient-reported outcomePatient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)SurvivorshipSymptom monitoring

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.