The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Benefits and Disadvantages of Electronic Patient-reported Outcome Measures: Systematic Review
Open accessAbstract
Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important in clinical practice and research. The growth of electronic health technologies provides unprecedented opportunities to systematically collect information via PROMs. Objective: The aim of this study was to provide an objective and comprehensive overview of the benefits, barriers, and disadvantages of the digital collection of qualitative electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs). Methods: We performed a systematic review of articles retrieved from PubMED and Web of Science. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed during all stages. The search strategy yielded a total of 2333 records, from which 32 met the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The relevant ePROM-related information was extracted from each study. Results: Results were clustered as benefits and disadvantages. Reported benefits of ePROMs were greater patient preference and acceptability, lower costs, similar or faster completion time, higher data quality and response rates, and facilitated symptom management and patient-clinician communication. Tablets were the most used ePROM modality (14/32, 44%), and, as a platform, Web-based systems were used the most (26/32, 81%). Potential disadvantages of ePROMs include privacy protection, a possible large initial financial investment, and exclusion of certain populations or the “digital divide.” Conclusions: In conclusion, ePROMs offer many advantages over paper-based collection of patient-reported outcomes. Overall, ePROMs are preferred over paper-based methods, improve data quality, result in similar or faster completion time, decrease costs, and facilitate clinical decision making and symptom management. Disadvantages regarding ePROMs have been outlined, and suggestions are provided to overcome the barriers. We provide a path forward for researchers and clinicians interested in implementing ePROMs. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42018094795; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=94795
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
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04337-3 · Cited by 5,373
A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines
Harbour, R., & Miller, J. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7308.334 · Cited by 1,637
Preoperative fasting for adults to prevent perioperative complications
Brady, M. C., Kinn, S., Stuart, P., & Ness, V. (2003) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004423 · Cited by 694 · cited 2×
“Brady et al, in a Cochrane review of 22 studies, found that different fasting regimens were not associated with differences in complications and patients who had consumed fluids preoperatively had the same or smaller residual gastric volume and there was no difference in complications but greater patient satisfaction…”
BackgroundGwaltney, C. J., Shields, A. L., & Shiffman, S. (2008) · Value in Health · doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00231.x · Cited by 623
Coons, S. J., Gwaltney, C. J., Hays, R. D., Lundy, J. J., Sloan, J. A., Revicki, D. A., Lenderking, W. R., Cella, D., & Basch, E. (2009) · Value in Health · doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00470.x · Cited by 537
Kongsved, S. M., Basnov, M., Holm-Christensen, K., & Hjollund, N. H. (2007) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.9.3.e25 · Cited by 395
Rolfson, O., Bohm, E., Franklin, P., Lyman, S., Denissen, G., Dawson, J., Dunn, J., Eresian Chenok, K., Dunbar, M., Overgaard, S., et al. (2016) · Acta Orthopaedica · doi:10.1080/17453674.2016.1181816 · Cited by 323
Comparison between web-based and paper versions of a self-administered anthropometric questionnaire
Touvier, M., Méjean, C., Kesse-Guyot, E., Pollet, C., Malon, A., Castetbon, K., & Hercberg, S. (2010) · European Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1007/s10654-010-9433-9 · Cited by 265
Muehlhausen, W., Doll, H., Quadri, N., Fordham, B., O’Donohoe, P., Dogar, N., & Wild, D. J. (2015) · Health and Quality of Life Outcomes · doi:10.1186/s12955-015-0362-x · Cited by 248
An introduction to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in physiotherapy
Kyte, D. G., Calvert, M., van der Wees, P. J., ten Hove, R., Tolan, S., & Hill, J. C. (2015) · Physiotherapy · doi:10.1016/j.physio.2014.11.003 · Cited by 227
Cited by
Home monitoring in interstitial lung diseases
Wijsenbeek, M. S., Moor, C. C., Johannson, K. A., Jackson, P. D., Khor, Y. H., Kondoh, Y., Rajan, S. K., Tabaj, G. C., Varela, B. E., van der Wal, P., et al. (2023) · The Lancet Respiratory Medicine · doi:10.1016/s2213-2600(22)00228-4 · Cited by 98
Patient-Reported Outcomes, Digital Health, and the Quest to Improve Health Equity
Pritchett, J. C., Patt, D., Thanarajasingam, G., Schuster, A., & Snyder, C. (2023) · American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book · doi:10.1200/edbk_390678 · Cited by 65
Hu, X., Liv, P., Lundström, E., Norström, F., Lindahl, O., Borg, K., & Sunnerhagen, K. S. (2023) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-023-07673-7 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Meirte, J., Hellemans, N., Anthonissen, M., Denteneer, L., Maertens, K., Moortgat, P., & Van Daele, U.
- Venue
- JMIR Perioperative Medicine
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2020-04-03
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- e15588
- ISSN
- 2561-9128 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3004501181
- Cited by
- 308
- References
- 46
- FWCI
- 7.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
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: Benefits and Disadvantages of Electronic Patient-reported Outcome Measures: Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2196/15588
- The paper
- Meirte, J., Hellemans, N., Anthonissen, M., Denteneer, L., Maertens, K., Moortgat, P., & Van Daele, U. (2020). Benefits and Disadvantages of Electronic Patient-reported Outcome Measures: Systematic Review. JMIR Perioperative Medicine. https://doi.org/10.2196/15588
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.
