{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,30]],"date-time":"2026-09-30T18:25:20Z","timestamp":1790792720751,"version":"4.1.0"},"reference-count":49,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"4","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,1]],"date-time":"2026-03-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1772323200000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,1]],"date-time":"2026-03-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1772323200000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"funder":[{"name":"University of Innsbruck and Medical University of Innsbruck"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Qual Life Res"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,4]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Purpose<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Transparent reporting of how patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are collected is essential to ensure reproducible and interpretable data. Different modes of assessment may affect data quality and feasibility, yet their use in cancer trials is poorly described. Electronic PRO (ePRO) assessment may improve data quality and enable active review, but it is unclear how often different modes of assessment like ePRO assessment are used and in which trials.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>We systematically searched PubMed for randomized controlled trials (published 2019\u20132023) that used cancer-specific PRO measures in patients with the six most common solid cancers. Trial characteristics, PRO reporting practices, and evidence of active review of PRO data were summarized descriptively. Univariate logistic regression was used to examine predictors of (1) reporting the mode of PRO assessment and (2) use of ePROs exclusively.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      Of 9331 references screened, 296 trials were included in the analysis. 135 (45.6%) reported the mode of PRO assessment: paper (51.9%), ePRO (20.7%), mixed modes (24.4%). Trials were more likely to report the mode of assessment if they were industry-sponsored (OR\u2009=\u20092.00, 95%,\n                      <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u2009.005), or had larger sample sizes (OR\u2009=\u20091.11, 95%,\n                      <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009&lt;\u2009.001). ePRO assessment exclusively was used more in recently registered trials (OR\u2009=\u20091.41,\n                      <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009&lt;\u2009.001) and in industry-sponsored trials (OR\u2009=\u20098.38,\n                      <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009&lt;\u2009.001). Active, in-stream review of PRO results was reported in 2.0% of trials.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusion<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Despite clear guidelines, reporting of the mode of PRO assessment remains inadequate, and active review of PRO data is uncommon. Strengthening transparency and using PROs more actively within trials could enhance patient-centered cancer research.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1007\/s11136-026-04179-y","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,1]],"date-time":"2026-03-01T12:34:02Z","timestamp":1772368442000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":2,"title":["Assessing the assessment: a scoping review of the mode of patient-reported outcome assessment in solid cancer clinical trials"],"prefix":"10.1007","volume":"35","author":[{"given":"Niclas","family":"Hubel","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Daniela","family":"Krepper","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Lotte","family":"van der Weijst","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Abigirl","family":"Machingura","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Claudia","family":"Seidl","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Samuel M.","family":"Vorbach","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Michelle","family":"Veil","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Johannes M.","family":"Giesinger","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Monika","family":"Sztankay","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Scottie","family":"Kern","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Deborah","family":"Fitzsimmons","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Dagmara","family":"Kuli\u015b","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Madeline","family":"Pe","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Bernhard","family":"Holzner","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-4670-7517","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Jens","family":"Lehmann","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"name":"EORTC Quality of Life Group","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,1]]},"reference":[{"issue":"7","key":"4179_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"967","DOI":"10.1017\/S1355617703970019","volume":"9","author":"C Anderson-Hanley","year":"2003","unstructured":"Anderson-Hanley, C., Sherman, M. L., Riggs, R., Agocha, V. B., & Compas, B. E. (2003). Neuropsychological effects of treatments for adults with cancer: A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 9(7), 967\u2013982.","journal-title":"Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society"},{"issue":"12","key":"4179_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"763","DOI":"10.1038\/nrclinonc.2017.153","volume":"14","author":"TW LeBlanc","year":"2017","unstructured":"LeBlanc, T. W., & Abernethy, A. P. (2017). Patient-reported outcomes in cancer care\u2014Hearing the patient voice at greater volume. Nature Reviews. Clinical Oncology, 14(12), 763\u2013772.","journal-title":"Nature Reviews. Clinical Oncology"},{"key":"4179_CR3","unstructured":"U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Core patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials: guidance for industry [Internet]. 2024. Available from: https:\/\/www.fda.gov\/regulatory-information\/search-fda-guidance-documents\/core-patient-reported-outcomes-cancer-clinical-trials"},{"key":"4179_CR4","unstructured":"European Medicines Agency. Appendix 2 to the guideline on the evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man - The use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in oncology studies [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2023 Mar 17]. Available from: https:\/\/www.ema.europa.eu\/en\/documents\/other\/appendix-2-guideline-evaluation-anticancer-medicinal-products-man_en.pdf"},{"issue":"6","key":"4179_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"687","DOI":"10.1016\/S1470-2045(25)00150-0","volume":"26","author":"M Pe","year":"2025","unstructured":"Pe, M., Voltz-Girolt, C., Bell, J., Bhatnagar, V., Bogaerts, J., Booth, C., et al. (2025). Using patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life data in regulatory decisions on cancer treatment: Highlights from an EMA-EORTC workshop. The Lancet Oncology, 26(6), 687\u2013690.","journal-title":"The Lancet Oncology"},{"issue":"6","key":"4179_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"664","DOI":"10.1016\/S1470-2045(25)00151-2","volume":"26","author":"F Pignatti","year":"2025","unstructured":"Pignatti, F., Mol, P., Quinten, C., Postmus, D., Schiel, A., Sasseville, M., et al. (2025). Use of patient-reported outcomes to inform symptom and functional outcomes in cancer drug regulatory decisions: Challenges and future directions. The Lancet Oncology, 26(6), 664\u2013666.","journal-title":"The Lancet Oncology"},{"issue":"8","key":"4179_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"814","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.2013.879","volume":"309","author":"M Calvert","year":"2013","unstructured":"Calvert, M., Blazeby, J., Altman, D. G., Revicki, D. A., Moher, D., Brundage, M. D., et al. (2013). Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: The CONSORT PRO Extension. JAMA, 309(8), 814.","journal-title":"JAMA"},{"issue":"5","key":"4179_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"483","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.2017.21903","volume":"319","author":"M Calvert","year":"2018","unstructured":"Calvert, M., Kyte, D., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Slade, A., Chan, A. W., King, M. T., et al. (2018). Guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial protocols: The SPIRIT-PRO Extension. JAMA, 319(5), 483.","journal-title":"JAMA"},{"issue":"1","key":"4179_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1186\/1471-2407-14-758","volume":"14","author":"JM Giesinger","year":"2014","unstructured":"Giesinger, J. M., Wintner, L. M., Zabernigg, A., Gamper, E. M., Oberguggenberger, A. S., Sztankay, M. J., et al. (2014). Assessing quality of life on the day of chemotherapy administration underestimates patients\u2019 true symptom burden. BMC Cancer, 14(1), Article 758.","journal-title":"BMC Cancer"},{"issue":"1","key":"4179_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"60","DOI":"10.1177\/0272989X211010171","volume":"42","author":"T Shiroiwa","year":"2022","unstructured":"Shiroiwa, T., Hagiwara, Y., Taira, N., Kawahara, T., Konomura, K., Iwamoto, T., et al. (2022). Randomized controlled trial of paper-based at a hospital versus continual electronic patient-reported outcomes at home for metastatic cancer patients: Does electronic measurement at home detect patients\u2019 health status in greater detail? Medical Decision Making, 42(1), 60\u201367.","journal-title":"Medical Decision Making"},{"issue":"2","key":"4179_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"322","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1524-4733.2007.00231.x","volume":"11","author":"CJ Gwaltney","year":"2008","unstructured":"Gwaltney, C. J., Shields, A. L., & Shiffman, S. (2008). Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: A meta-analytic review. Value in Health, 11(2), 322\u2013333.","journal-title":"Value in Health"},{"issue":"1","key":"4179_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1186\/s12955-015-0362-x","volume":"13","author":"W Muehlhausen","year":"2015","unstructured":"Muehlhausen, W., Doll, H., Quadri, N., Fordham, B., O\u2019Donohoe, P., Dogar, N., et al. (2015). Equivalence of electronic and paper administration of patient-reported outcome measures: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies conducted between 2007 and 2013. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 13(1), Article 167.","journal-title":"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes"},{"issue":"1","key":"4179_CR13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"79","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jval.2023.10.007","volume":"27","author":"FD Mowlem","year":"2024","unstructured":"Mowlem, F. D., Elash, C. A., Dumais, K. M., Haenel, E., O\u2019Donohoe, P., Olt, J., et al. (2024). Best practices for the electronic implementation and migration of patient-reported outcome measures. Value in Health, 27(1), 79\u201394.","journal-title":"Value in Health"},{"key":"4179_CR14","unstructured":"U.S. Food and Drug Administration FDA. Patient-Focused Drug Development: Selecting, Developing, or Modifying Fit-for-Purpose Clinical Outcome Assessments [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https:\/\/www.fda.gov\/regulatory-information\/search-fda-guidance-documents\/patient-focused-drug-development-selecting-developing-or-modifying-fit-purpose-clinical-outcome"},{"issue":"5","key":"4179_CR15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"623","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jval.2023.01.001","volume":"26","author":"P O\u2019Donohoe","year":"2023","unstructured":"O\u2019Donohoe, P., Reasner, D. S., Kovacs, S. M., Byrom, B., Eremenco, S., Barsdorf, A. I., et al. (2023). Updated recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement comparability among modes of data collection for patient-reported outcome measures: A good practices report of an ISPOR task force. Value in Health, 26(5), 623\u2013633.","journal-title":"Value in Health"},{"issue":"11","key":"4179_CR16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e28915","DOI":"10.2196\/28915","volume":"23","author":"H Yu","year":"2021","unstructured":"Yu, H., Yu, Q., Nie, Y., Xu, W., Pu, Y., Dai, W., et al. (2021). Data quality of longitudinally collected patient-reported outcomes after thoracic surgery: Comparison of paper- and web-based assessments. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(11), e28915.","journal-title":"Journal of Medical Internet Research"},{"issue":"6","key":"4179_CR17","volume":"6","author":"R Mercieca-Bebber","year":"2016","unstructured":"Mercieca-Bebber, R., Palmer, M. J., Brundage, M., Calvert, M., Stockler, M. R., & King, M. T. (2016). Design, implementation and reporting strategies to reduce the instance and impact of missing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data: A systematic review. British Medical Journal Open, 6(6), Article e010938.","journal-title":"British Medical Journal Open"},{"issue":"4","key":"4179_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"301","DOI":"10.1007\/s40271-014-0090-z","volume":"8","author":"SJ Coons","year":"2015","unstructured":"Coons, S. J., Eremenco, S., Lundy, J. J., O\u2019Donohoe, P., O\u2019Gorman, H., & Malizia, W. (2015). Capturing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data electronically: The past, present, and promise of ePRO measurement in clinical trials. Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 8(4), 301\u2013309.","journal-title":"Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research"},{"issue":"4","key":"4179_CR19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"480","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jval.2013.04.002","volume":"16","author":"A Zbrozek","year":"2013","unstructured":"Zbrozek, A., Hebert, J., Gogates, G., Thorell, R., Dell, C., Molsen, E., et al. (2013). Validation of electronic systems to collect patient-reported outcome (PRO) data\u2014recommendations for clinical trial teams: Report of the ISPOR ePRO Systems Validation Good Research Practices Task Force. Value in Health, 16(4), 480\u2013489.","journal-title":"Value in Health"},{"issue":"7347","key":"4179_CR20","first-page":"1193","volume":"324","author":"AA Stone","year":"2002","unstructured":"Stone, A. A., Shiffman, S., Schwartz, J. E., Broderick, J. E., & Hufford, M. R. (2002). Patient non-compliance with paper diaries. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 324(7347), 1193\u20131194.","journal-title":"BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.)"},{"issue":"34","key":"4179_CR21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"4249","DOI":"10.1200\/JCO.2012.42.5967","volume":"30","author":"E Basch","year":"2012","unstructured":"Basch, E., Abernethy, A. P., Mullins, C. D., Reeve, B. B., Smith, M. L., Coons, S. J., et al. (2012). Recommendations for incorporating patient-reported outcomes into clinical comparative effectiveness research in adult oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 30(34), 4249\u20134255.","journal-title":"Journal of Clinical Oncology"},{"key":"4179_CR22","unstructured":"European Medicines Agency. Guideline on computerised systems and electronic data in clinical trials [Internet]. 2023. Available from: https:\/\/www.ema.europa.eu\/en\/documents\/regulatory-procedural-guideline\/guideline-computerised-systems-and-electronic-data-clinical-trials_en.pdf"},{"issue":"6","key":"4179_CR23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1120","DOI":"10.1038\/s41591-022-01781-8","volume":"28","author":"MJ Calvert","year":"2022","unstructured":"Calvert, M. J., Cruz Rivera, S., Retzer, A., Hughes, S. E., Campbell, L., Molony-Oates, B., et al. (2022). Patient reported outcome assessment must be inclusive and equitable. Nature Medicine, 28(6), 1120\u20131124.","journal-title":"Nature Medicine"},{"key":"4179_CR24","first-page":"1","volume":"29","author":"OL Aiyegbusi","year":"2024","unstructured":"Aiyegbusi, O. L., Cruz Rivera, S., Roydhouse, J., Kamudoni, P., Alder, Y., Anderson, N., et al. (2024). Recommendations to address respondent burden associated with patient-reported outcome assessment. Nature Medicine, 29, 1\u201310.","journal-title":"Nature Medicine"},{"issue":"12","key":"4179_CR25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1229","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.2013.277222","volume":"310","author":"D Kyte","year":"2013","unstructured":"Kyte, D., Draper, H., & Calvert, M. (2013). Patient-reported outcome alerts: Ethical and logistical considerations in clinical trials. JAMA, 310(12), 1229.","journal-title":"JAMA"},{"issue":"8","key":"4179_CR26","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e2424793","DOI":"10.1001\/jamanetworkopen.2024.24793","volume":"7","author":"AK Balitsky","year":"2024","unstructured":"Balitsky, A. K., Rayner, D., Britto, J., Lionel, A. C., Ginsberg, L., Cho, W., et al. (2024). Patient-reported outcome measures in cancer care: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Network Open, 7(8), e2424793.","journal-title":"JAMA Network Open"},{"issue":"9","key":"4179_CR27","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"878","DOI":"10.1016\/j.annonc.2022.04.007","volume":"33","author":"M Di Maio","year":"2022","unstructured":"Di Maio, M., Basch, E., Denis, F., Fallowfield, L. J., Ganz, P. A., Howell, D., et al. (2022). The role of patient-reported outcome measures in the continuum of cancer clinical care: ESMO clinical practice guideline. Annals of Oncology, 33(9), 878\u2013892.","journal-title":"Annals of Oncology"},{"issue":"1","key":"4179_CR28","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"399","DOI":"10.1038\/s41746-025-01812-x","volume":"8","author":"Y Xia","year":"2025","unstructured":"Xia, Y., Guan, X., Zhu, W., Wang, Y., Shi, Z., & He, P. (2025). Effectiveness of symptom monitoring on electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) among patients with lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. NPJ Digital Medicine, 8(1), 399.","journal-title":"NPJ Digital Medicine"},{"key":"4179_CR29","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Madariaga A, S\u00e1nchez-Bayona R, Kasherman L, Estrada-Lorenzo JM, Manso L, Tolosa P, et al. (2025). Proactive assessment of patient reported outcomes in ovarian cancer studies: a systematic review and call for action in future studies. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, 101864.","DOI":"10.1136\/ijgc-2024-005883"},{"issue":"7","key":"4179_CR30","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"467","DOI":"10.7326\/M18-0850","volume":"169","author":"AC Tricco","year":"2018","unstructured":"Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O\u2019Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., et al. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467\u2013473.","journal-title":"Annals of Internal Medicine"},{"issue":"1","key":"4179_CR31","first-page":"7","volume":"72","author":"RL Siegel","year":"2022","unstructured":"Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., Fuchs, H. E., & Jemal, A. (2022). Cancer statistics, 2022. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 72(1), 7\u201333.","journal-title":"CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians"},{"issue":"4","key":"4179_CR32","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"585","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jval.2020.11.004","volume":"24","author":"JM Giesinger","year":"2021","unstructured":"Giesinger, J. M., Efficace, F., Aaronson, N., Calvert, M., Kyte, D., Cottone, F., et al. (2021). Past and current practice of patient-reported outcome measurement in randomized cancer clinical trials: A systematic review. Value in Health, 24(4), 585\u2013591.","journal-title":"Value in Health"},{"issue":"9","key":"4179_CR33","volume":"14","author":"J Lehmann","year":"2024","unstructured":"Lehmann, J., Krepper, D., Pe, M., Kuli\u015b, D., Giesinger, J. M., Sztankay, M., et al. (2024). Data collection methods for patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomised controlled trials: A protocol for a rapid scoping review. British Medical Journal Open, 14(9), Article e084935.","journal-title":"British Medical Journal Open"},{"key":"4179_CR34","unstructured":"DistillerSR [Internet]. DistillerSR Inc; 2025 [cited 2025 Sept 15]. Available from: https:\/\/www.distillersr.com"},{"issue":"3","key":"4179_CR35","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"200","DOI":"10.7326\/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583","volume":"158","author":"AW Chan","year":"2013","unstructured":"Chan, A. W., Tetzlaff, J. M., Altman, D. G., Laupacis, A., G\u00f8tzsche, P. C., Krle\u017ea-Jeri\u0107, K., et al. (2013). SPIRIT 2013 Statement: Defining Standard Protocol Items for Clinical Trials. Annals of Internal Medicine, 158(3), 200\u2013207.","journal-title":"Annals of Internal Medicine"},{"key":"4179_CR36","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. (2010). CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ, 340(mar23 1), c869\u2013c869.","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.c869"},{"key":"4179_CR37","unstructured":"R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available from: https:\/\/www.R-project.org\/"},{"issue":"1","key":"4179_CR38","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"231","DOI":"10.1093\/annonc\/mdu489","volume":"26","author":"O Bylicki","year":"2015","unstructured":"Bylicki, O., Gan, H. K., Joly, F., Maillet, D., You, B., & P\u00e9ron, J. (2015). Poor patient-reported outcomes reporting according to CONSORT guidelines in randomized clinical trials evaluating systemic cancer therapy. Annals of Oncology, 26(1), 231\u2013237.","journal-title":"Annals of Oncology"},{"issue":"12","key":"4179_CR39","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1715","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jval.2021.06.003","volume":"24","author":"F Efficace","year":"2021","unstructured":"Efficace, F., Giesinger, J. M., Cella, D., Cottone, F., Sparano, F., Vignetti, M., et al. (2021). Investigating trends in the quality of reporting of patient-reported outcomes in oncology over time: Analysis of 631 randomized controlled trials published between 2004 and 2019. Value in Health, 24(12), 1715\u20131719.","journal-title":"Value in Health"},{"issue":"1","key":"4179_CR40","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1186\/s13063-018-2510-1","volume":"19","author":"AW Chan","year":"2018","unstructured":"Chan, A. W., & Hr\u00f3bjartsson, A. (2018). Promoting public access to clinical trial protocols: Challenges and recommendations. Trials, 19(1), Article 116.","journal-title":"Trials"},{"issue":"6","key":"4179_CR41","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1776","DOI":"10.1038\/s41591-025-03635-5","volume":"31","author":"S Hopewell","year":"2025","unstructured":"Hopewell, S., Chan, A. W., Collins, G. S., Hr\u00f3bjartsson, A., Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., et al. (2025). CONSORT 2025 statement: Updated guideline for reporting randomized trials. Nature Medicine, 31(6), 1776\u20131783.","journal-title":"Nature Medicine"},{"key":"4179_CR42","first-page":"68","volume":"19","author":"N Jos\u00e9","year":"2010","unstructured":"Jos\u00e9, N., & Langel, K. (2010). ePRO vs. Paper. Applied Clinical Trials, 19, 68\u201374.","journal-title":"Applied Clinical Trials"},{"issue":"4","key":"4179_CR43","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"531","DOI":"10.1007\/s43441-022-00412-1","volume":"56","author":"FD Mowlem","year":"2022","unstructured":"Mowlem, F. D., Tenaerts, P., Gwaltney, C., & Oakley-Girvan, I. (2022). Regulatory acceptance of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from bring-your-own-device (BYOD) solutions to support medical product labeling claims: Let\u2019s share the success stories to move the industry forward. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 56(4), 531\u2013535.","journal-title":"Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science"},{"issue":"11","key":"4179_CR44","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3075","DOI":"10.1038\/s41591-024-03323-w","volume":"30","author":"OL Aiyegbusi","year":"2024","unstructured":"Aiyegbusi, O. L., Cruz Rivera, S., Kamudoni, P., Anderson, N., Collis, P., Denniston, A. K., et al. (2024). Recommendations to promote equity, diversity and inclusion in decentralized clinical trials. Nature Medicine, 30(11), 3075\u20133084.","journal-title":"Nature Medicine"},{"issue":"8","key":"4179_CR45","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1780","DOI":"10.1158\/1078-0432.CCR-17-2555","volume":"24","author":"J Kim","year":"2018","unstructured":"Kim, J., Singh, H., Ayalew, K., Borror, K., Campbell, M., Johnson, L. L., et al. (2018). Use of PRO measures to inform tolerability in oncology trials: Implications for clinical review, IND safety reporting, and clinical site inspections. Clinical Cancer Research, 24(8), 1780\u20131784.","journal-title":"Clinical Cancer Research"},{"issue":"3","key":"4179_CR46","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"331","DOI":"10.1177\/1740774515615540","volume":"13","author":"E Basch","year":"2016","unstructured":"Basch, E., Wood, W. A., Schrag, D., Sima, C. S., Shaw, M., Rogak, L. J., et al. (2016). Feasibility and clinical impact of sharing patient-reported symptom toxicities and performance status with clinical investigators during a phase 2 cancer treatment trial. Clinical Trials, 13(3), 331\u2013337.","journal-title":"Clinical Trials"},{"issue":"1","key":"4179_CR47","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e0144658","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0144658","volume":"11","author":"D Kyte","year":"2016","unstructured":"Kyte, D., Ives, J., Draper, H., & Calvert, M. (2016). Management of patient-reported outcome (PRO) alerts in clinical trials: A cross sectional survey. PLoS ONE, 11(1), e0144658.","journal-title":"PLoS ONE"},{"key":"4179_CR48","unstructured":"Lehmann J. (2025). After the trial is too late: The case for more active use of patient-reported outcomes in oncology studies. Applied Clinical Trials, 34(4)."},{"issue":"27","key":"4179_CR49","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e69398","DOI":"10.2196\/69398","volume":"25","author":"NJ Hubel","year":"2025","unstructured":"Hubel, N. J., Vorbach, S. M., De Ligt, K. M., Rathgeber, I. S., Beyer, K., Wintner, L. M., et al. (2025). Sustainability and time trends in electronic patient-reported outcome assessment in routine cancer care: Systematic scoping review and follow-up survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25(27), e69398.","journal-title":"Journal of Medical Internet Research"}],"container-title":["Quality of Life Research"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s11136-026-04179-y.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s11136-026-04179-y","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s11136-026-04179-y.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,13]],"date-time":"2026-05-13T13:59:30Z","timestamp":1778680770000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1007\/s11136-026-04179-y"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,1]]},"references-count":49,"journal-issue":{"issue":"4","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,4]]}},"alternative-id":["4179"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11136-026-04179-y","relation":{},"ISSN":["0962-9343","1573-2649"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0962-9343","type":"print"},{"value":"1573-2649","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,1]]},"assertion":[{"value":"19 August 2025","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"16 January 2026","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"1 March 2026","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"order":1,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"NJH reports employment by ACMIT GmbH\u2014Austrian Center for Medical Innovation and Technology, Wiener Neustadt, Austria, which was not involved in this study. BH owns intellectual property rights to the software CHES, a software for electronic data capture. JL reports consultancy for Evaluation Software Development and a research grant from Takeda, both outside of the submitted work. All remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest.","order":2,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Conflict of interest"}}],"article-number":"80"}}