The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What Is the Value of the Routine Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Toward Improvement of Patient Outcomes, Processes of Care, and Health Service Outcomes in Cancer Care? A Systematic Review of Controlled Trials
Abstract
Purpose: The systematic use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has been advocated as an effective way to standardize cancer practice. Yet, the question of whether PROMs can lead to actual improvements in the quality of patient care remains under debate. This review examined whether inclusion of PROM in routine clinical practice is associated with improvements in patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes during active anticancer treatment. Methods: A systematic review of five electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL [Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature], PsycINFO, and Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection [PBSC]) was conducted from database inception to May 2012 to locate randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials of patients receiving active anticancer treatment or supportive care irrespective of type of cancer. Results: Based on prespecified eligibility criteria, we included 26 articles that reported on 24 unique controlled trials. Wide variability in the design and use of interventions delivered, outcomes evaluated, and cancer- and modality-specific context was apparent. Health service outcomes were only scarcely included as end points. Overall, the number of statistically significant findings were limited and PROMs' intervention effect sizes were predominantly small-to-moderate. Conclusion: The routine use of PROMs increases the frequency of discussion of patient outcomes during consultations. In some studies, PROMs are associated with improved symptom control, increased supportive care measures, and patient satisfaction. Additional effort is required to ensure patient adherence, as well as additional support to clinicians who will respond to patient concerns and issues, with clear system guidelines in place to guide their responses. More research is required to support PROM cost-benefit in terms of patient safety, clinician burden, and health services usage.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., Savovic, J., Schulz, K. F., Weeks, L., Sterne, J. A. C., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928 · Cited by 33,817
Moher, D., Hopewell, S., Schulz, K. F., Montori, V., Gotzsche, P. C., Devereaux, P. J., Elbourne, D., Egger, M., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c869 · Cited by 8,883 · cited 1×
“Diagram of the study selection process according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.(12,43) CINAHL, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; PBSC, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection; PROMs, patient-reported outcome measures.”
MethodVelikova, G., Booth, L., Smith, A. B., Brown, P. M., Lynch, P., Brown, J. M., & Selby, P. J. (2004) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2004.06.078 · Cited by 1,382
Detmar, S. B., Muller, M. J., Schornagel, J. H., Wever, L. D. V., & Aaronson, N. K. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.288.23.3027 · Cited by 1,011
Impact of patient‐reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review
Marshall, S., Haywood, K., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2006) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00650.x · Cited by 602
Kearney, N., McCann, L., Norrie, J., Taylor, L., Gray, P., McGee-Lennon, M., Sage, M., Miller, M., & Maguire, R. (2009) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-008-0515-0 · Cited by 263
Self-citation
Cited by
Basch, E., Deal, A. M., Kris, M. G., Scher, H. I., Hudis, C. A., Sabbatini, P., Rogak, L., Bennett, A. V., Dueck, A. C., Atkinson, T. M., et al. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2015.63.0830 · Cited by 2,593
Basch, E., Deal, A. M., Dueck, A. C., Scher, H. I., Kris, M. G., Hudis, C., & Schrag, D. (2017) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2017.7156 · Cited by 2,302
Toussaint, A., Hüsing, P., Gumz, A., Wingenfeld, K., Härter, M., Schramm, E., & Löwe, B. (2020) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2020.01.032 · Cited by 641
Di Maio, M., Basch, E., Denis, F., Fallowfield, L. J., Ganz, P. A., Howell, D., Kowalski, C., Perrone, F., Stover, A. M., Sundaresan, P., et al. (2022) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2022.04.007 · Cited by 509
Basch, E., Schrag, D., Henson, S., Jansen, J., Ginos, B., Stover, A. M., Carr, P., Spears, P. A., Jonsson, M., Deal, A. M., et al. (2022) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2022.9265 · Cited by 413
Metadata
- Authors
- Kotronoulas, G., Kearney, N., Maguire, R., Harrow, A., Di Domenico, D., Croy, S., & MacGillivray, S.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2014-05-10
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 14
- Pages
- 1480-1501
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2096870505
- Cited by
- 946
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 4.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What Is the Value of the Routine Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Toward Improvement of Patient Outcomes, Processes of Care, and Health Service Outcomes in Cancer Care? A Systematic Review of Controlled Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2013.53.5948
- The paper
- Kotronoulas, G., Kearney, N., Maguire, R., Harrow, A., Di Domenico, D., Croy, S., & MacGillivray, S. (2014). What Is the Value of the Routine Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Toward Improvement of Patient Outcomes, Processes of Care, and Health Service Outcomes in Cancer Care? A Systematic Review of Controlled Trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2013.53.5948
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
