Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41879917›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2026

Accessible data collection methods in clinical trials: do current best practices for the implementation of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) meet accessibility standards?

Florence D Mowlem, Paul O'Donohoe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Florence D MowlemuMotif, London, UK. florence.mowlem@umotif.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5503-568X
Paul O'DonohoeMedidata Solutions, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Apps and web browsers, whether on smartphones, tablets or laptops, have become the mainstream methods of capturing clinical outcome assessment (COA) data, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in particular, in clinical trials. There has long been concern around whether implementing traditionally paper-based questionnaires on electronic systems may impact the measurement properties of these carefully validated questionnaires, with migration best practices focusing predominately on this issue. In parallel, app and web-design best practices outside of clinical research have focused on the accessibility and usability of these electronic systems for the widest range of users. This article evaluates how existing web accessibility success criteria compare to electronic PROM (ePROM) design best practices, identifying where there is alignment or tension, where further evidence is needed to ensure both accessibility and the maintenance of the questionnaire measurement properties, and what accessibility practices can be incorporated into ePROM design best practices today.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicData CollectionPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresHumansInternetSurveys and QuestionnairesAccessibilityBurdenDiversityeCOAePROMigration

Identifiers

PMID41879917
PMCPMC13090402

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.