SynthesisBMJ open quality2025
Electronic Patient Reported Outcome Measures and quality of life in cancer (E-PROMISE): systematic review of the evidence and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- ASO Education and Training: Taking the Next Step in Surgical Oncology Health Disparities Research: Identifying Root Causes and Targets for Actionable Change.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Review
- Scan, Screen, Support-A Digital Pathway for Assessing Supportive Care Needs in Oncology: Implementation Study.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) was to evaluate the impact of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with cancer.
designWe performed SRMA of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ePRO interventions with usual care in patients with cancer. The primary outcome was HRQoL. We used a random effects model a priori due to the anticipated clinical heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses and meta-regressions were performed to explore sources of heterogeneity. After assessing the risk of bias using risk-of-bias tool (RoB V.2), we rated the evidence certainty using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies meeting the following criteria: (1) RCTs; (2) patients diagnosed with any type of cancer, undergoing or having completed treatment; (3) comparing ePROs with usual care without ePRO interventions; (4) assessing the effect on HRQoL. INFORMATION SOURCES: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to April 2024.
resultsWe screened 7706 records to include 36 RCTs with 9608 patients. ePRO interventions showed a standardised mean difference (SMD) of 0.35; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.51 compared with usual care. Patients receiving ongoing therapy had an SMD of 0.39 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.58), while those who had completed therapy had an SMD of 0.12 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.22), with a significant subgroup difference (p=0.01). No statistically significant differences were observed across the method of ePRO assessment, cancer site, metastasis status, therapy status, average age or duration of ePRO use. The results remained consistent with Bayesian and other sensitivity analyses.
conclusionsePRO interventions improve HRQoL more than usual care in patients with cancer, with greater effect in those currently undergoing therapy. This improvement is independent of cancer type, duration of ePRO use or patient age. Future research should address sources of heterogeneity, explore long-term impacts and develop strategies to increase patient engagement and adherence to ePRO systems. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024531708.
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.