Trial reportTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2025
Electronic patient-reported outcome assessments: evaluating patient preference for the number of items per screen.
Trial report in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beyond Screen Formats: Towards Context-Aware, Patient-Centric ePRO Design in Clinical Trials.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn clinical trials, the single-item-per-screen format is commonly used for electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs). However, participant preferences for this format over multiple items per screen have not been investigated. This study evaluated participant preferences for single-item-per-screen vs. multiple-items-per-screen ePRO formats, the effect on completion times, and the comparability of scores between formats.
methodsParticipation in this randomized, crossover, observational study involved ePRO completion in both single-item-per-screen and multiple-items-per-screen formats on an electronic tablet device during two study visits. A paper-based preference questionnaire was completed at each visit.
resultsThirty-seven adults (mean [SD] age = 49.6 [15.4] years; 51.4% female; 54.1% White) enrolled and 36 participants completed both visits. Twelve participants (33.3%) preferred the multiple-item format, 12 (33.3%) preferred the single-item format, 10 (27.8%) had no preference, and 2 (5.6%) did not notice a difference. Seventeen participants (47.2%) preferred the single-item format when participating in a clinical trial, and most (n = 20; 55.6%) believed that others would prefer this format in a clinical trial. The ePRO completion time (minutes:seconds) was longer for the single-item format than the multiple-item format (mean [SD], 6:42 [2:24] vs. 6:21 [2:22]; p = 0.1540). The ePRO scores were similar across both formats.
conclusionThis study provided evidence that both single-item and multiple-items-per-screen presented on an electronic tablet device are acceptable to users and that format preference may be specific to each individual. Thus, clinical programs need to consider the targeted study population, the purpose of use, and the overall trial design when designing ePRO solutions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40495051What 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.