SynthesisPloS one2025
A systematic review of the effectiveness of self-symptoms monitoring with Patient Reported Outcome Measures in rheumatic disease patients.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to provide an up-to-date synthesis of the effectiveness of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) to self-monitor symptoms compared to conventional follow-up care in rheumatic disease patients. The effect of providing feedback via PROMs was also evaluated.
methodsThis review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Articles published before December 2024 were retrieved from PubMed®, Cochrane Library®, Embase®, and PsycINFO® (Ovid). Studies were included if they (1) compared PROMs against no PROMs use, or (2) or if they utilized PROMs as an intervention with feedback provided to healthcare professionals or patients for comparison against PROMs use without feedback. Non-English articles and abstract-only articles were excluded. Results were synthesized in a narrative manner. Methodological quality was assessed using the Risk of Bias tool and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool.
resultsA total of 18, 159 articles were screened, and 9 articles were included. All 9 studies reported on the use of PROMs as an intervention against a control where no PROMs were used. 4 of the studies included reported improvements in symptom control; 1 study observed improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) when PROMs were used. High patient satisfaction was observed in 5 studies, but the results were statistically insignificant. 1 found that PROMs use facilitated shared decision making. 3 studies reported on clinic visits with mixed results. No studies reported on survival/mortality. Out of the 9 studies, 2 studies compared PROMs with feedback to patients and/or healthcare professionals against PROMS without feedback. There was conflicting evidence whether PROMs with feedback improved patient satisfaction in clinical care. Three studies were identified to be of moderate to high risk of bias.
conclusionThe use of PROMs self-symptom monitoring may contribute to improving symptom control, HRQoL, patient perception, promote shared decision making, and reduce clinic visits. Our study may have limited generalizability to other rheumatic disease beyond RA as most of our study is in rheumatoid arthritis. More studies in other rheumatic diseases are needed. REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered in OpenSci Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZU9XM).
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.