Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41647296›Full record

ArticleESMO real world data and digital oncology2024

Adoption of electronic patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical practice: the point of view of Italian patients.

A A Valsecchi, V Battista, S Terzolo, R Dionisio, G Lacidogna, D Marino, V Quarà, E Sperti, V Tuninetti, F Vignani and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ESMO real world data and digital oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

A A ValsecchiDepartment of Oncology, University of Turin, Ordine Mauriziano Hospital, Turin, Italy.
V BattistaDepartment of Oncology, University of Turin, Ordine Mauriziano Hospital, Turin, Italy.
S TerzoloMedical Oncology, Ordine Mauriziano-Umberto I Hospital, Turin, Italy.
R DionisioMedical Oncology, Ordine Mauriziano-Umberto I Hospital, Turin, Italy.
G LacidognaMedical Oncology, Ordine Mauriziano-Umberto I Hospital, Turin, Italy.
D MarinoMedical Oncology, Ordine Mauriziano-Umberto I Hospital, Turin, Italy.
V QuaràMedical Oncology, Ordine Mauriziano-Umberto I Hospital, Turin, Italy.
E SpertiMedical Oncology, Ordine Mauriziano-Umberto I Hospital, Turin, Italy.
V TuninettiMedical Oncology, Ordine Mauriziano-Umberto I Hospital, Turin, Italy.
F VignaniMedical Oncology, Ordine Mauriziano-Umberto I Hospital, Turin, Italy.
C ZichiMedical Oncology, Ordine Mauriziano-Umberto I Hospital, Turin, Italy.
V E BounousGynecology and Obstetrics Unit, Ordine Mauriziano-Umberto I Hospital, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
G ValabregaDepartment of Oncology, University of Turin, Ordine Mauriziano Hospital, Turin, Italy.
A FerreroGynecology and Obstetrics Unit, Ordine Mauriziano-Umberto I Hospital, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
N BigliaGynecology and Obstetrics Unit, Ordine Mauriziano-Umberto I Hospital, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
M Di MaioDepartment of Oncology, University of Turin, Ordine Mauriziano Hospital, Turin, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In 2022, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guideline recommended the adoption of electronic patient-reported outcomes measures (ePROMs) in routine clinical practice for patients with cancer. The aim of this survey is to identify the critical issues that would arise in the implementation of ePROMs in daily oncology clinical practice from patients' view. Materials and methods: From March to April 2023, outpatients with cancer treated at Mauriziano Hospital in Turin (Italy) filled in a paper questionnaire. Seven questions dealt with the respondents' characteristics, eight questions with the satisfaction about the current method used to collect information about patients' symptoms and toxicities, and the opinion about several potentially critical issues for the implementation of ePROMs. Results: Two hundred and twenty patients completed the survey. In current clinical practice, symptoms are mostly collected through verbal questions and paper-based questionnaires. Seventy-two percent of patients were satisfied with these methods; 82% were in favor of using ePROMs. Most patients were not concerned about privacy (82%), while a minority was concerned about possible lack of interest by clinicians in the symptoms digitally reported (14%) and the possible negative impact on doctor-patient relationship (39%). Seventy-seven percent of respondents declared to be familiar with technological tools and 83% were confident with the availability of internet connection. Conclusions: In our center, most patients are satisfied with current methods of symptom monitoring and would also be in favor of the introduction of ePROMs. However, several aspects still need to be addressed for universal implementation of ePROMs in routine practice.

Indexed as

cancerclinical practiceelectronic patient-reported outcome measurespatient-reported outcome measurespatient-reported outcomesquality of life

Identifiers

PMID41647296
PMCPMC12836719

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.