ArticleBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2025
Validation of the Symptom Illustration Scale within an electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes Monitoring environment for metastatic breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.
Article in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo enhance patient outcomes, we previously developed "Hibilog", an app that allows patients to report symptoms electronically. The paper-based Symptom Illustration Scale (SIS) was adapted using stickers and emojis to evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This study aimed to validate SIS within an electronic PRO monitoring environment for metastatic breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.
methodsThe patients used the Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes Monitoring (ePROM) "Hibilog" application to answer a questionnaire consisting of 18 items selected from the Patient-Reported Outcome-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), focusing on symptoms related to breast cancer treatment, along with the corresponding SIS questionnaire. Symptom monitoring began upon registration and continued every two weeks until the completion of the study. The primary outcome was the criterion-related validity of the SIS against PRO-CTCA using the ePROM. The secondary endpoints included the response rate, response time, and missing rates for each item.
resultsPatients (n = 75) were registered between September 2019 and March 2020. For criterion validity, the Spearman rank correlation coefficients between the PRO-CTCAE and SIS items showed high correlations (rs ≥ 0.41) for all 18 items. The κ correlation coefficient indicated a high correlation (κ > 0.41) in 11 of the 18 items (61.1%), unlike the correlation with continuous variables. In terms of response and missing rates, the SIS in ePROM demonstrated similarly high performance as our results. Additionally, the average response time was 3.0 min (SD 4.2) for SIS, with a substantially shorter response time.
conclusionWe conclude that SIS is a useful tool in an ePROM environment for patients with MBC undergoing chemotherapy. The clinical utility of SIS in an ePRO environment needs to be validated to develop a more accurate scale for capturing patient symptoms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40208505What 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.