ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
Adaptation of digital integration of PROMs and PREMs in oncology during implementation: a scoping review.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 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
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDigital tools facilitate the timely collection of patient-reported outcome and experience measures (ePROMs/PREMs), but there is no consistent reporting on the technical and content adaptations made essential to implementing these digital tools in a specific context. Adaptations made to ePROMs/ePREMs can improve data quality, clinical management, and patient outcomes. We explored how studies report on adaptations and the reasons and types of these during an implementation process of ePROMs/ePREMs systems in routine cancer care.
methodsWe conducted a systematic scoping review. We searched PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, and CINAHL (inception-May 5, 2023), using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. Guided by the Population, Concept, and Context (PCC) framework, data were extracted and summarised in tables in four dimensions: context, content, evaluation, and training.
resultsThe systematic search found n = 5597 publications, and n = 20 were included (85% published since 2019). No studies reported on ePREMs. Various data collection methods and stakeholders were utilised to make adaptations, guided by one or more implementation frameworks (80% of studies). Common types of adaptations included changing context (e.g. complex onboarding), content (e.g. readability) (all studies), evaluation (e.g. alerts), and training (e.g. patients and clinicians). The use of an implementation framework did not affect the types of adaptations made.
conclusionsThis review summarises the types of adaptations made to oncology ePROMs during implementation. To date, there has been no agreed system to capture adaptations of ePROMs in oncology, nor a system or framework to assess ePROMs efficacy.
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.