In one paragraphTrial report 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
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 registryThe 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 literatureWho cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
4 · The recordCorrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
5 · Who and what moneyAuthors and funding
17 authors.
Yadi Zhang *Department of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 55, Section 4, South Renmin Road, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-9182-3797 Xin Gao *Department of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 55, Section 4, South Renmin Road, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3089-2279 Cheng Lei *Department of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 55, Section 4, South Renmin Road, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3500-076X Yaqin WangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 55, Section 4, South Renmin Road, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4373-7435 Jia LiaoDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 55, Section 4, South Renmin Road, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0385-8032 Xing WeiDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 55, Section 4, South Renmin Road, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3035-5633 Fang LiuDepartment of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-0653-0692 Qiang LiDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 55, Section 4, South Renmin Road, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1841-4132 Qiuling ShiDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 55, Section 4, South Renmin Road, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0660-3809 Wei DaiDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 55, Section 4, South Renmin Road, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, China. daiwei@sichuancancer.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1650-1590 Linlin FanDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 55, Section 4, South Renmin Road, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, China. 152222922@qq.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-3970-1966 Funding
Health Commission of Sichuan Province Medical Science and Technology Program 24LCYJZD08Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China 2022YFE0133100National Key Clinical Specialty Discipline Construction Program of China N.A.
6 · The paper itselfAbstract
backgroundPatients frequently experience severe symptoms after lung cancer surgery. Symptom management using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) can improve postoperative symptom burden, enhance functional status, and reduce complications. This qualitative study aimed to explore patient perspectives on ePRO-based symptom management. METHODOLOGY: Patients in a multicentre, randomised controlled trial (CN-PRO-Lung 2) conducted in China were asked to participate in qualitative interviews. In the trial, patients with lung cancer were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive postoperative symptom management based on ePRO or usual care. To explore perspectives on the model, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 patients in the ePRO group. Data were analysed using descriptive and thematic analyses.
resultsThe median age of patients was 53.5 years (range: 28-73 years), with 55% being female. Two major themes emerged from the qualitative interviews: patient acceptance and patient-derived recommendations. Patient acceptance included four subthemes: patient satisfaction, daily life disruption and burden, postoperative recovery assistance, and long-term implementation needs. Patients were highly satisfied with the ePRO model and felt it did not increase their burden. They also found it beneficial for recovery and recommended long-term implementation. Patient-derived recommendations included two subthemes: enhancing the ePRO model and improving the system. Patients emphasised the importance of timely doctor feedback, a user-friendly interface, recognisable app icons, and additional self-reporting sections to increase engagement and efficiency.
conclusionsePRO-based symptom management seems to be acceptable for patients who underwent lung cancer surgery. Future research should focus on optimising the ePRO model and system to better meet patient needs and facilitate its clinical implementation.
Indexed as
Lung NeoplasmsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPostoperative ComplicationsAdultAgedChinaFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionQualitative ResearchQuality of LifeSymptom BurdenElectronic patient-reported outcomeLung cancer surgeryQualitative studySymptom monitoring
Identifiers
PMID42156612
PMCPMC13365064
What OpenQuestion holds
Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390