Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42791406›Full record

SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026

Electronic patient-reported outcome platforms used in hematological cancers: a systematic review.

Jessica Nikolovski, Marika Franklin, Eliza A Hawkes, Louise Acret, Jodie Palmer, Ozgu Serce, Zoe K McQuilten, Erica M Wood, Claudia Rutherford

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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.

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

9 authors.

Jessica NikolovskiSydney Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. jessica.nikolovski@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-0912-9087
Marika FranklinSydney Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Eliza A HawkesSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Louise AcretFaculty of Medicine and Health, Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, Cancer Care Research Unit, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Jodie PalmerSchool of Cancer Medicine, Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute and LaTrobe University, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia.
Ozgu SerceFaculty of Medicine and Health, Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, Cancer Care Research Unit, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Zoe K McQuiltenThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia.
Erica M WoodThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia.
Claudia RutherfordFaculty of Medicine and Health, Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, Sydney Quality of Life Office (SQOLO), University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe use of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) has demonstrated benefits in oncology; however, their use in hematological malignancies remains limited. We aimed to identify bespoke ePROM platforms used in hematology settings and describe their features, acceptability, usability, feasibility, implementation and uptake rates, and outcome data.

methodsA systematic review was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane) and Google Play were searched for studies and mobile applications (apps) reporting on ePROM platforms in hematological cancer populations. Data were extracted about the following: characteristics, features, uses, and patient or clinician-reported data on platform acceptability, usability, feasibility, implementation, and evaluation outcomes.

resultsFourteen total platforms were identified from 18 studies (reporting 13 unique ePROM platforms) and one platform known to authors. No additional platforms were identified through Google Play search. The included platforms were used in hematological research, clinical care, and registry settings and captured symptoms and quality of life using validated and customized PROMs. Delivery modes included websites and apps that featured automated prompts, clinician alerts, graphical feedback, and electronic medical record integration. Overall, usability was reported to be high; most platforms were acceptable to patients and clinicians. Feasibility and uptake varied, but several studies reported high patient engagement (> 80% completion rates). Positive outcomes included reduced symptom burden, improved treatment adherence, and enhanced patient-clinician communication.

conclusionsThe diversity of identified platforms reflects the wide range of hematological diseases, treatments, and care settings in which ePROMs may be applied, highlighting their flexibility and adaptability. Existing ePROM platforms used in hematological cancers vary substantially in features, purposes, and settings. Future work should focus on tailoring content, supporting implementation, and evaluating the impact of ePROM platforms on patient, clinician, and service outcomes.

Indexed as

Hematologic NeoplasmsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresDigital HealthElectronic Health RecordsHumansMobile ApplicationsQuality of LifeCancerDigital healthElectronic patient-reported outcomesHematologySymptom monitoring

Identifiers

PMID42791406
PMCPMC13615055

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.