ReviewPatient preference and adherence2026
Adherence to Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: A Null-Results Review of Measure-Related Effects on Response Rates in Routine Care.
Review in Patient preference and adherence, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review focuses on measure-related effects of PROMs on patient acceptance, adherence, and response rates in routine clinical care. The review received no external funding and was registered on medRxiv [medRxiv 2024.06.13.24308883] prior to its execution. It was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies in English or German from the past ten years including patients ≥18 years in routine care with multiple measurement time points were included. Reports on clinical trials in terms of drug or intervention research as well as study protocols were excluded. A literature search across MEDLINE, Embase [Ovid], CINAHL, PsychArticles, PsycInfo [Ebsco], Scopus and Web of Science identified n = 420 potentially relevant publications. The data were retrieved from the data banks on 31st of January 2024. In the full-text screening, no study met the predefined inclusion criteria, therefore no risk of bias assessment or result synthesis was performed. This unexpected finding underscores a significant research gap. It indicates that the effects of instrument-inherent properties (like structure or wording) on patient adherence to PRO assessments have not been evaluated in routine care settings. The design of PROMs can have a potential influence on patient participation and the resulting data quality, which is especially relevant in light of the rising use of PRO assessments in routine care and the growing interest in real-world evidence data. Due to its search window of 10 years, its restriction to articles published in English or German, and its focus on routine care settings, the review may have excluded qualitative research and early works on adherence in routine care. Overall our review highlights the need for future research focusing on intrinsic PROM characteristics and how they relate to patients' acceptance and adherence in order to explore the full potential of real-world data.
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.