Observational studyTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2026
A Preliminary Study Introducing Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome (ePRO) Using Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) in Post-marketing Surveillance in Japan.
Observational study in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe method of collecting electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) data using the bring your own device (BYOD) approach has become very common recently, especially in clinical trials. We conducted a preliminary study to evaluate the processes before introducing ePRO using BYOD in regulatory-required observational post-marketing surveillance (PMS) in Japan.
methodsWe conducted a multicenter observational study using a two-period, two-sequence, cross-over design. Participants were allocated to Group 1 (starting with ePRO) or Group 2 (starting with paper PRO). The observation period was 14 days in total: seven days each for ePRO and paper PRO. We assessed the usability, implementation process, support system, and materials for ePRO through questionnaires.
resultsAll participants in Group 1 (n = 78) and Group 2 (n = 73) were included in the analysis set. The collection of information with ePRO was comparable to that with paper PRO. We found no remarkable difference in data entry status between ePRO and paper PRO based on sex and no trend toward a higher proportion of missing data in ePRO with age. More than half of the participants responded favorably to most of the questionnaire items about ePRO. Although the investigators considered the materials for the ePRO system useful, there is still room for improvement.
conclusionOur two-week pilot indicates that ePRO can achieve data completeness comparable to paper in motivated clinics. The points to consider when using ePRO in actual PMS were confirmed. Further assessment in actual studies conducted in compliance with local regulations is needed.
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.