Electronic Patient Reported Outcome Measures and quality of life in cancer (E-PROMISE): systematic review of the evidence and meta-analysis.

IF 1.3 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Noor Husain, Zarrin Ansari, Muhammad Aaqib Shamim, Zahid Zahiri, Mamta Singh, Russell Kabir, Shambo Samrat Samajdar, Dinesh Dhodi, Bijaya Kumar Padhi, Aiman Zehra Kazmi, Suelen Queiroz, Abdulqadir J Nashwan, Pradeep Dwivedi
{"title":"Electronic Patient Reported Outcome Measures and quality of life in cancer (E-PROMISE): systematic review of the evidence and meta-analysis.","authors":"Noor Husain, Zarrin Ansari, Muhammad Aaqib Shamim, Zahid Zahiri, Mamta Singh, Russell Kabir, Shambo Samrat Samajdar, Dinesh Dhodi, Bijaya Kumar Padhi, Aiman Zehra Kazmi, Suelen Queiroz, Abdulqadir J Nashwan, Pradeep Dwivedi","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003209","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) was to evaluate the impact of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with cancer.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>We performed SRMA of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ePRO interventions with usual care in patients with cancer. The primary outcome was HRQoL. We used a random effects model a priori due to the anticipated clinical heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses and meta-regressions were performed to explore sources of heterogeneity. After assessing the risk of bias using risk-of-bias tool (RoB V.2), we rated the evidence certainty using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included studies meeting the following criteria: (1) RCTs; (2) patients diagnosed with any type of cancer, undergoing or having completed treatment; (3) comparing ePROs with usual care without ePRO interventions; (4) assessing the effect on HRQoL.</p><p><strong>Information sources: </strong>We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to April 2024.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We screened 7706 records to include 36 RCTs with 9608 patients. ePRO interventions showed a standardised mean difference (SMD) of 0.35; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.51 compared with usual care. Patients receiving ongoing therapy had an SMD of 0.39 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.58), while those who had completed therapy had an SMD of 0.12 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.22), with a significant subgroup difference (p=0.01). No statistically significant differences were observed across the method of ePRO assessment, cancer site, metastasis status, therapy status, average age or duration of ePRO use. The results remained consistent with Bayesian and other sensitivity analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ePRO interventions improve HRQoL more than usual care in patients with cancer, with greater effect in those currently undergoing therapy. This improvement is independent of cancer type, duration of ePRO use or patient age. Future research should address sources of heterogeneity, explore long-term impacts and develop strategies to increase patient engagement and adherence to ePRO systems.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42024531708.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":"14 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003209","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) was to evaluate the impact of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with cancer.

Design: We performed SRMA of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ePRO interventions with usual care in patients with cancer. The primary outcome was HRQoL. We used a random effects model a priori due to the anticipated clinical heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses and meta-regressions were performed to explore sources of heterogeneity. After assessing the risk of bias using risk-of-bias tool (RoB V.2), we rated the evidence certainty using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework.

Eligibility criteria: We included studies meeting the following criteria: (1) RCTs; (2) patients diagnosed with any type of cancer, undergoing or having completed treatment; (3) comparing ePROs with usual care without ePRO interventions; (4) assessing the effect on HRQoL.

Information sources: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to April 2024.

Results: We screened 7706 records to include 36 RCTs with 9608 patients. ePRO interventions showed a standardised mean difference (SMD) of 0.35; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.51 compared with usual care. Patients receiving ongoing therapy had an SMD of 0.39 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.58), while those who had completed therapy had an SMD of 0.12 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.22), with a significant subgroup difference (p=0.01). No statistically significant differences were observed across the method of ePRO assessment, cancer site, metastasis status, therapy status, average age or duration of ePRO use. The results remained consistent with Bayesian and other sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions: ePRO interventions improve HRQoL more than usual care in patients with cancer, with greater effect in those currently undergoing therapy. This improvement is independent of cancer type, duration of ePRO use or patient age. Future research should address sources of heterogeneity, explore long-term impacts and develop strategies to increase patient engagement and adherence to ePRO systems.

Prospero registration number: CRD42024531708.

电子患者报告的结果测量和癌症患者的生活质量(E-PROMISE):证据的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:本系统回顾和荟萃分析(SRMA)的目的是评估电子患者报告结局(ePROs)对癌症患者健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)的影响。设计:我们对癌症患者的ePRO干预与常规护理进行了随机对照试验(rct)的SRMA比较。主要观察指标为HRQoL。由于预期的临床异质性,我们使用了先验的随机效应模型。进行亚组分析和元回归来探索异质性的来源。在使用偏倚风险工具(RoB V.2)评估偏倚风险后,我们使用推荐、评估、发展和评估框架的分级对证据确定性进行了评级。入选标准:我们纳入了符合以下标准的研究:(1)随机对照试验;(二)正在接受或者已经完成治疗的各类癌症患者;(3)比较ePRO与不进行ePRO干预的常规护理;(4)评估对HRQoL的影响。信息来源:我们系统地检索了PubMed, Embase和Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials,截止到2024年4月。结果:我们筛选了7706条记录,包括36项rct, 9608例患者。ePRO干预的标准化平均差异(SMD)为0.35;与常规护理相比,95% CI为0.18 ~ 0.51。接受持续治疗的患者的SMD为0.39 (95% CI 0.21至0.58),而完成治疗的患者的SMD为0.12 (95% CI 0.01至0.22),亚组差异显著(p=0.01)。ePRO评估方法、肿瘤部位、转移状态、治疗状态、平均年龄或使用ePRO时间无统计学差异。结果与贝叶斯和其他敏感性分析保持一致。结论:ePRO干预比常规护理更能改善癌症患者的HRQoL,对正在接受治疗的患者效果更大。这种改善与癌症类型、使用ePRO的持续时间或患者年龄无关。未来的研究应解决异质性的来源,探索长期影响,并制定策略,以提高患者对ePRO系统的参与度和依从性。普洛斯彼罗注册号:CRD42024531708。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Open Quality
BMJ Open Quality Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
226
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信