These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27220523)

  • 1. Evaluation of quality of life using a tablet PC-based survey in cancer patients treated with radiotherapy: a multi-institutional prospective randomized crossover comparison of paper and tablet PC-based questionnaires (KROG 12-01).
    Kim H; Park HC; Yoon SM; Kim TH; Kim J; Kang MK; Jung J; Kim SW; Yea JW; Park SH; Park YS
    Support Care Cancer; 2016 Oct; 24(10):4399-406. PubMed ID: 27220523
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Mode equivalence and acceptability of tablet computer-, interactive voice response system-, and paper-based administration of the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).
    Bennett AV; Dueck AC; Mitchell SA; Mendoza TR; Reeve BB; Atkinson TM; Castro KM; Denicoff A; Rogak LJ; Harness JK; Bearden JD; Bryant D; Siegel RD; Schrag D; Basch E;
    Health Qual Life Outcomes; 2016 Feb; 14():24. PubMed ID: 26892667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Evaluation of mode equivalence of the MSKCC Bowel Function Instrument, LASA Quality of Life, and Subjective Significance Questionnaire items administered by Web, interactive voice response system (IVRS), and paper.
    Bennett AV; Keenoy K; Shouery M; Basch E; Temple LK
    Qual Life Res; 2016 May; 25(5):1123-30. PubMed ID: 26590838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Reliability of an e-PRO Tool of EORTC QLQ-C30 for Measurement of Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Breast Cancer: Prospective Randomized Trial.
    Wallwiener M; Matthies L; Simoes E; Keilmann L; Hartkopf AD; Sokolov AN; Walter CB; Sickenberger N; Wallwiener S; Feisst M; Gass P; Fasching PA; Lux MP; Wallwiener D; Taran FA; Rom J; Schneeweiss A; Graf J; Brucker SY
    J Med Internet Res; 2017 Sep; 19(9):e322. PubMed ID: 28912116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Are Electronic and Paper Questionnaires Equivalent to Assess Patients with Overactive Bladder?
    Palmer C; Farhan B; Nguyen N; Zhang L; Do R; Nguyen DV; Ghoniem G
    J Urol; 2018 Aug; 200(2):369-374. PubMed ID: 29605443
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Paper and electronic versions of HM-PRO, a novel patient-reported outcome measure for hematology: an equivalence study.
    Goswami P; Oliva EN; Ionova T; Else R; Kell J; Fielding AK; Jennings DM; Karakantza M; Al-Ismail S; Lyness J; Collins GP; McConnell S; Langton C; Al-Obaidi MJ; Oblak M; Salek S
    J Comp Eff Res; 2019 May; 8(7):523-533. PubMed ID: 31037971
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Self-assessments of patients via Tablet PC in routine patient care: comparison with standardised paper questionnaires.
    Richter JG; Becker A; Koch T; Nixdorf M; Willers R; Monser R; Schacher B; Alten R; Specker C; Schneider M
    Ann Rheum Dis; 2008 Dec; 67(12):1739-41. PubMed ID: 18647853
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Patient preference: a comparison of electronic patient-completed questionnaires with paper among cancer patients.
    Martin P; Brown MC; Espin-Garcia O; Cuffe S; Pringle D; Mahler M; Villeneuve J; Niu C; Charow R; Lam C; Shani RM; Hon H; Otsuka M; Xu W; Alibhai S; Jenkinson J; Liu G
    Eur J Cancer Care (Engl); 2016 Mar; 25(2):334-41. PubMed ID: 25899560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Internet-administered Health-related Quality of Life Questionnaires Compared With Pen and Paper in an Adolescent Scoliosis Population: A Randomized Crossover Study.
    Nitikman M; Mulpuri K; Reilly CW
    J Pediatr Orthop; 2017 Mar; 37(2):e75-e79. PubMed ID: 26756988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Agreement between touch-screen and paper-based patient-reported outcomes for patients with fibromyalgia: a randomized cross-over reproducibility study.
    Wæhrens EE; Amris K; Bartels EM; Christensen R; Danneskiold-Samsøe B; Bliddal H; Gudbergsen H
    Scand J Rheumatol; 2015; 44(6):503-10. PubMed ID: 26114582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A comparison of a tablet version of the Quality of Life Systemic Inventory for Children (QLSI-C) to the standard paper version.
    Touchèque M; Etienne AM; Missotten P; Dupuis G
    Psychol Assess; 2016 Jun; 28(6):780-5. PubMed ID: 26460896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Electronic versus paper-based assessment of health-related quality of life specific to HIV disease: reliability study of the PROQOL-HIV questionnaire.
    Duracinsky M; Lalanne C; Goujard C; Herrmann S; Cheung-Lung C; Brosseau JP; Schwartz Y; Chassany O
    J Med Internet Res; 2014 Apr; 16(4):e115. PubMed ID: 24769643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Assessing the Effects of Participant Preference and Demographics in the Usage of Web-based Survey Questionnaires by Women Attending Screening Mammography in British Columbia.
    Mlikotic R; Parker B; Rajapakshe R
    J Med Internet Res; 2016 Mar; 18(3):e70. PubMed ID: 27005707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Automated collection of quality-of-life data: a comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires.
    Velikova G; Wright EP; Smith AB; Cull A; Gould A; Forman D; Perren T; Stead M; Brown J; Selby PJ
    J Clin Oncol; 1999 Mar; 17(3):998-1007. PubMed ID: 10071295
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The usability of a WeChat-based electronic questionnaire for collecting participant-reported data in female pelvic floor disorders: a comparison with the traditional paper-administered format.
    Sun ZJ; Zhu L; Liang M; Xu T; Lang JH
    Menopause; 2016 Aug; 23(8):856-62. PubMed ID: 27326820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report.
    Coons SJ; Gwaltney CJ; Hays RD; Lundy JJ; Sloan JA; Revicki DA; Lenderking WR; Cella D; Basch E;
    Value Health; 2009 Jun; 12(4):419-29. PubMed ID: 19900250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Validation study of the Korean version of the M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory.
    Yun YH; Mendoza TR; Kang IO; You CH; Roh JW; Lee CG; Lee WS; Lee KS; Bang SM; Park SM; Cleeland CS; Wang XS
    J Pain Symptom Manage; 2006 Apr; 31(4):345-52. PubMed ID: 16632082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of the paper-based and electronic versions of the Dermatology Life Quality Index: evidence of equivalence.
    Ali FM; Johns N; Finlay AY; Salek MS; Piguet V
    Br J Dermatol; 2017 Nov; 177(5):1306-1315. PubMed ID: 28112800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Patient-reported outcome assessment after total joint replacement: comparison of questionnaire completion times on paper and tablet computer.
    Kesterke N; Egeter J; Erhardt JB; Jost B; Giesinger K
    Arch Orthop Trauma Surg; 2015 Jul; 135(7):935-41. PubMed ID: 25957980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. PRO-ONKO-selection of patient-reported outcome assessments for the clinical use in cancer patients-a mixed-method multicenter cross-sectional exploratory study.
    Schmidt H; Merkel D; Koehler M; Flechtner HH; Sigle J; Klinge B; Jordan K; Vordermark D; Landenberger M; Jahn P
    Support Care Cancer; 2016 Jun; 24(6):2503-12. PubMed ID: 26676238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.