ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2026
Selection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) for long-term follow up of patients diagnosed with lung or rectal cancer.
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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite their recognized value, the heterogeneous use of PROMs and PREMs prevents standardized data collection across hospitals, limiting their impact on both individual patient care and broader healthcare optimization. This study aims to identify and establish a standardized set of PROMs and PREMs for lung and rectal cancer to support uniform data collection and follow-up. METHODOLOGY: This multicenter study involved 10 Flemish hospitals focusing on lung and rectal cancer and applied a nine-phase methodology: (1) literature-based identification of PROMs and PREMs, (2) inventory of PROMs and PREMs currently used and proposed by the participating hospitals, (3) systematic assessment of PROM and PREM characteristics, (4) preliminary selection by the research team, (5) a Modified Delphi study with clinical experts, (6) an interview with methodologists, (7) patient focus groups, (8) a consensus meeting with clinical experts, and (9) finalization by the research group. A total of 13 lung cancer experts and 13 rectal cancer experts participated in the modified Delphi study. In addition, interviews were conducted with two methodologists, and five lung cancer patients and five rectal cancer patients, including both current and former patients, took part in the focus groups.
resultsConsensus-based standardized sets of PROMs for lung and rectal cancer were selected. The final PROM sets consisted of the EQ-5D-5L (generic), EORTC QLQ-C30 and adapted PRO-CTCAE (cancer-specific), EORTC QLQ-LC29 (lung cancer-specific), and the EORTC QLQ-CR29, EORTC QLQ-LMC21 (1 item) and LARS (rectal cancer-specific), and an adapted version of the SF-HLQ for employment-related outcomes in both cancer populations. No PREM met the selection criteria.
conclusionBased on a structured multi-phase approach integrating quantitative and qualitative methods with input from both patients and clinical experts, standardized PROM sets were selected for lung and rectal cancer. A specific PREM needs to be developed.
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.