No abstract

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

Introduction: A wide variety of non-invasive treatments has been proposed for the management of hypertrophic burn scars. Unfortunately, the reported efficacy has not been consistent, and especially in the first three months after wound closure, fragility of the scarred skin limits the treatment options. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) is a new non-invasive type of mechanotherapy to treat wounds and scars. The aim of the present study was to examine the objective and subjective scar-related effects of ESWT on burn scars in the early remodelling phase. Material and methods: Evaluations included the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) for scar quality, tri-stimulus colorimetry for redness, tewametry for trans-epidermal water loss (TEWL) and cutometry for elasticity. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups, the low-energy intervention group or the placebo control group, and were tested at baseline, after one, three and six months. All patients were treated with pressure garments, silicone and moisturisers. Both groups received the ESWT treatment (real or placebo) once a week for 10 weeks. Results: Results for 20 patients in each group after six months are presented. The objective assessments showed a statistically significant effect of ESWT compared with placebo on elasticity ( P = 0.011, η2 P=0.107) but revealed no significant effects on redness and TEWL. Results of the clinical assessments showed no significant interactions between intervention and time for the POSAS Patient and Observer scores. Conclusion: ESWT can give added value to the non-invasive treatment of hypertrophic scars, more specifically to improve elasticity when the treatment was already started in the first three months after wound closure. Lay Summary Pathological scarring is a common problem after a burn injury. A wide variety of non-invasive treatments has been proposed for the management of these scars. Unfortunately, the reported efficacy of these interventions has not been consistent, and especially in the first three months after wound closure, fragility of the scarred skin limits the treatment options. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) is a relatively new non-invasive therapy to treat both wounds and scars. The aim of the present study was to examine the scar-related effects of ESWT on burn scars in the early phase of healing. The scars were subjectively assessed for scar quality by the patient and an observer using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). Objective assessments included measurements to assess redness, water loss and elasticity. Forty patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups, the low-energy intervention group or the placebo control group (the device simulated the sound of an ESWT treatment but no real shocks were applied), and were tested at four timepoints up to six months. All patients were treated with pressure garments, silicone and moisturisers. Both groups received the ESWT treatment (real or placebo) once a week for 10 weeks. The objective assessments showed a significant improvement of elasticity in the intervention group when compared with placebo but revealed no significant effects on redness and water loss. Results of the clinical assessments showed no differences between the groups for the POSAS Patient and Observer scores. ESWT can give added value to the non-invasive treatment of pathological scars more specifically to improve elasticity in the early phase of healing.

No abstract

No abstract