Cited by 233Cancer survivorship and careElectronic Health Records SystemsMobile Health and mHealth Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bringing PROMIS to practice: Brief and precise symptom screening in ambulatory cancer care

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Supportive oncology practice can be enhanced by the integration of a brief and validated electronic patient‐reported outcome assessment into the electronic health record (EHR) and clinical workflow. METHODS: Six hundred thirty‐six women receiving gynecologic oncology outpatient care received instructions to complete clinical assessments through Epic MyChart, an EHR patient communication portal. Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computer adaptive tests (CATs) were administered to assess fatigue, pain interference, physical function, depression, and anxiety. Checklists identified psychosocial concerns, informational and nutritional needs, and risk factors for inadequate nutrition. Assessment results, including PROMIS T scores with documented severity thresholds, were immediately populated in the EHR. Clinicians were notified of clinically elevated symptoms through EHR messages. EHR integration was designed to provide automated triage to social work providers for psychosocial concerns, to health educators for information, and to dietitians for nutrition‐related concerns. RESULTS: Four thousand forty‐two MyChart messages sent, and 3203 (79%) were reviewed by patients. The assessment was started by 1493 patients (37%), and once they started, 93% (1386 patients) completed the assessment. According to first assessments only, 49.8% of the patients who reviewed the MyChart message completed the assessment. Mean PROMIS CAT T scores indicated a lower level of physical function and elevated anxiety in comparison with the general population. Fatigue, pain, and depression scores were comparable to those of the general population. Impaired physical functioning was the most common basis for clinical alerts and occurred in 4% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: PROMIS CATs were used to measure common cancer symptoms in routine oncology outpatient care. Immediate EHR integration facilitated the use of symptom reporting as the basis for referral to psychosocial and supportive care. Cancer 2015;121:927–934. © 2014 American Cancer Society.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cncr.29104

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 30 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Cella D, 2008, A novel IRT‐based case‐ranking approach to derive expert standards for symptom severity, Qual Life Res, 17, A32

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Wagner, L. I., Schink, J., Bass, M., Patel, S., Diaz, M. V., Rothrock, N., Pearman, T., Gershon, R., Penedo, F. J., Rosen, S., & Cella, D.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Spectrum Health (US)
  • City Of Hope National Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Wagner, Lynne I.
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-11-06
Volume
121
Issue
6
Pages
927-934
ISSN
  • 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0142
OpenAlex
W1597614727
Cited by
233
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 10
FWCI
8.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (R01 CA60068)
  • Coleman Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health (U5 AR057951)
  • William W. Wirtz Cancer Innovation Fund
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
PROMIS, computerized adaptive testing, patient-reported outcomes, electronic health record integration, symptom screening, gynecologic oncology, fatigue, pain interference, physical function, depression, anxiety, nutritional risk, cancer supportive care
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Ambulatory Care, Female, Genital Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Palliative Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult, Electronic Health Records, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review