Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of studies and reasons for exclusion

From: Proactive use of PROMs in ovarian cancer survivors: a systematic review

Study

Aim and reason for exclusion

Velikova G et al. 2004 [10]

Evaluated the effectiveness of active use of a PROM during treatment and the effect on QoL. This study was performed on mixed cancer sites and data on OC patients were not reported separately. PROMs were primarily used during active treatment.

Hess LM et al. 2012 [15]

Review assessed published literature regarding Health Related QoL among ovarian cancer patients. Reported no studies using PROMs actively during FU.

Hilpert F et al. 2018 [16]

Review examined the current status regard the use of PROM in clinical trials. Highlight that PROM has potential to be used in decision making. Find that PROM most likely will become more important in clinical trials.

Wiering B et al. 2017 [17]

Review assessed the extent to which patients were involved in the development of PROMs and if patients involvement has increased over time. They reported no studies using PROMs actively over time.

Preston N et al. 2015 [18]

Review assessed different PROMs used in gynecological oncology in order to identify the most appropriate PROM. No studies reported using PROMs actively during FU.

Clarke T et al. 2014 [19]

Review compared the benefits of different follow-up strategies in patients with OC. Found one randomized controlled trail regarding follow-up strategies. Highlights the needs for new trails aiming to investigate in different types of FU. Found no study that used PROMs actively.

Kew F et al. 2011 [20]

Review compared the potential benefits of different follow-up strategies in OC survivors. Highlights the needs for trails comparing different FU programs with focus on QoL, survival and cost. Found no studies using PROMs during FU.

Zikos et al. 2016 [21]

Review assessed whether Health Related QoL could provide prognostic information among OC survivors. No studies used PROMs actively during FU.

Ahmed-Lecheheb et al. 2016 [22]

Review examined the literature measuring QoL in patients who survived OC. Find that OC survivors experience a wide range of sequelae that have a negative impact on QoL. Found no studies using PROMs actively.

Detmar SB et al. 2002 [23]

Examined the effect of using PROMs on communications between clinician and patients during active palliative treatment. This study was performed on mixed cancer sites. Study excluded because PROMs were used during treatment and data on OC patients were not reported separately.

King MT et al. 2018 [24]

Aimed to review and validate MOST, a new PROM for OC patients with relapse. PROM used during treatment. MOST can be used to measure symptom benefit and burden during treatment. PROM were not used during FU.

McCorkle R et al. 2011 [25]

Evaluated the effect of support for self-management; the patients were included shortly after surgery and the intervention was applied during active treatment. The intervention was not offered during FU.

Meraner V et al. 2012 [26]

Assessed the course of depressive symptoms, anxiety, fatigue and QoL in patients with OC over the course of chemotherapy and for the 2 first aftercare visits. PROMs were used during treatment and it is unclear if PROMs was used actively and the study was therefore excluded.

Beesley VL et al. 2013 [27]

Aimed to identify risk factors for future unmet needs after first-line treatment for OC. PROMs were used during FU, but the pro-actively use of PROMs is unclear and the study was excluded.

Stewart DE et al. 2001 [28]

Study designed to learn more about self-management of physical health and QoL of OC survivors. Participants had been at least 2 years without treatment. PROMs were used anonymously and not used actively.

Bodurka-Bevers D et al. 2000 [29]

Assessed the prevalence of anxiety and depressive symptoms and QoL problems in OC patients. PROMs were not used proactively.

Greimel E et al. 2011 [30]

Aimed to compare QoL in long-term OC survivors with short-term survivors. PROMs were not used proactively.

Liavaag AH et al. 2007 [31]

Aimed to explore fatigue, QoL, and somatic and mental morbidity between OC with and without relapse. PROMs were not used actively.

Matei D et al. 2009 [32]

Compared late effects of treatment on physical well-being between OGCT survivors and matched controls. PROMs were not used proactively.

Mercieca-Bebber RL et al. 2017 [33]

Investigated if low QoL among OC survivors was associated with earlier study drop out. PROMs were used during FU, but were not used actively.

Guidozzi F. 1993 [34]

Interviewed OC survivors regarding the impact of OC on their QoL. How the answers were used is unclear and the study was removed.

Chase DM et al. 2011 [35]

This paper is an overview of the state of the science of QoL measurement in clinical management. Found no studies using PROMs actively.

Williams LA et al. 2013 [36]

Aimed to develop a new questionnaire for OC patients. Patients were involved in the development of a questionnaire. Their response was not used proactively.

Greimel E et al. 2003 [37]

Aimed to validate the EORTC QLQ-OV28 disease-specific questionnaire. PROMs were not used actively.

Snyder CF et al. 2009 [38]

Focus on implementing PROMs in the clinical setting in general, and not on using PROMs proactively.

Bördlein-Wahl I et al. 2009 [39]

Described the general knowledge of PROMs from a clinician, patient, and scientist point of view. PROMs were not used actively.

Roncolato FT et al. 2017 [40]

Investigated whether baseline QoL score would be prognostic. PROMs were used to assess the effect of an intervention but not used proactively.

Jensen RE et al. 2016 [41]

Accompanies the editorial of E. Basch et al. [42]. PROMs were used to detect change in QoL score and to optimize symptom management during active treatment.

Du Bois A et al. 2005 [43]

Aimed to evaluate if standard care guidelines were followed among OC patients. Surveys were used in clinicians and not OC patients.

Madalinska JB et al. 2007 [44]

Aimed to investigate if baseline characteristic can predict surgery outcome. PROMs were not used proactively.

De Rooij BH et al. 2017 [45]

Aimed to assess the effect of survivorship care plans. PROMs were used during FU but were not used proactively.

Phillips KA et al. 2004 [46]

Used PROMs to investigate if gatekeeper requirements are associated with the utilization of cancer screening, not specific OC patients. PROMs were not used pro-actively.

Beesley VL et al. 2018 [42]

Aimed to identify coping strategies, used by OC survivors. PROM were used to assess their QoL but not used proactively.

Cesario SK et al. 2010 [47]

Aimed to identify OC patients’ worries and fears. PROMs were collected among OC survivors once and not used proactively.

Keim-Malpass J et al. 2017 [48]

PROMs used to identify physical and psychosocial problems at different time points during treatment.

Oberguggenberger A et al. 2016 [49]

PROMs used to identify physical problems after genetic BRCA testing. PROMs were not used actively.

Stukenborg GJ et al. 2016 [50]

Score of PROMs were used to estimate if patients should be given palliative or more aggressive treatment. This study was performed on mixed cancer sites. Data on OC patients were not reported separately.

Rietveld M et al. 2016 [51]

PROMs used to measure the satisfaction with information provided at the time of diagnosis. PROMs were not used pro-actively.

Beesley VL et al. 2011 [52]

PROMs used to identify the amount of physical activity after diagnosis of OC. PROMs were not used proactively.

Greimel E et al. 2019 [53]

PROMs were not used proactively. Describes that PROM can provide important information regard patients QoL during treatment.

Pearman TP et al. 2018 [54]

Evaluated the if the use of a single question “I am bothered by side effects of treatment” in different cancer sites is associated with clinical reported adverse events. PROM were not used proactively.

Astrup GL et al. 2017 [55]

Used PROMs to identify patients at risk of developing symptoms during active treatment, but PROMs were not a part of the FU program. This study was performed on mixed cancer sites.

Basch E et al. 2016 [56]

Evaluated the use of PROMs in different cancer sites as a screening tool, for symptom management during treatment.

Anderson RT et al. 2019 [57]

PROM were not used proactively but used to predict QoL after cancer diagnosis.

Hilarius DL et al. 2008 [58]

This study was performed on mixed cancer sites. Study excluded because PROMs were collected during treatment and data on OC patients were not reported separately.

Shalowitz D. 2015 [59]

Used questionnaires to investigate prognostic issues among clinician.

Kew FM et al. 2006 [60]

Aimed to investigate current practice regarding FU of OC patients. PROMs were not used pro-actively.