Characteristics of included studies (N = 9).

ObjectiveWe aimed to provide an up-to-date synthesis of the effectiveness of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) to self-monitor symptoms compared to conventional follow-up care in rheumatic disease patients. The effect of providing feedback via PROMs was also evaluated.MethodsThis review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Articles published before December 2024 were retrieved from PubMed®, Cochrane Library®, Embase®, and PsycINFO® (Ovid). Studies were included if they (1) compared PROMs against no PROMs use, or (2) or if they utilized PROMs as an intervention with feedback provided to healthcare professionals or patients for comparison against PROMs use without feedback. Non-English articles and abstract-only articles were excluded. Results were synthesized in a narrative manner. Methodological quality was assessed using the Risk of Bias tool and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool.ResultsA total of 18, 159 articles were screened, and 9 articles were included. All 9 studies reported on the use of PROMs as an intervention against a control where no PROMs were used. 4 of the studies included reported improvements in symptom control; 1 study observed improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) when PROMs were used. High patient satisfaction was observed in 5 studies, but the results were statistically insignificant. 1 found that PROMs use facilitated shared decision making. 3 studies reported on clinic visits with mixed results. No studies reported on survival/mortality. Out of the 9 studies, 2 studies compared PROMs with feedback to patients and/or healthcare professionals against PROMS without feedback. There was conflicting evidence whether PROMs with feedback improved patient satisfaction in clinical care. Three studies were identified to be of moderate to high risk of bias.ConclusionThe use of PROMs self-symptom monitoring may contribute to improving symptom control, HRQoL, patient perception, promote shared decision making, and reduce clinic visits. Our study may have limited generalizability to other rheumatic disease beyond RA as most of our study is in rheumatoid arthritis. More studies in other rheumatic diseases are needed.RegistrationThe protocol was registered in OpenSci Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZU9XM).研究目的：本研究旨在针对风湿性疾病患者中，采用患者报告结局指标（Patient Reported Outcome Measures, PROMs）自我监测症状相较于常规随访护理的有效性，提供最新的综合分析；同时评估通过PROMs实施反馈干预的效果。 研究方法：本综述遵循《系统评价与元分析首选报告条目指南》（Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis guidelines）。研究检索了PubMed®、考克兰图书馆（Cochrane Library®）、Embase®以及PsycINFO®（Ovid平台）中2024年12月之前发表的文献。纳入标准如下：（1）对比使用PROMs与未使用PROMs的组别；或（2）将PROMs作为干预手段，向医护人员或患者提供反馈，并与未提供反馈的PROMs使用情况进行对比的研究。排除非英文文献及仅收录摘要的文献。研究结果以叙述性方式综合呈现；方法学质量采用偏倚风险工具（Risk of Bias tool）及非随机干预研究偏倚风险工具（Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool）进行评估。 研究结果：总计筛选18159篇文献，最终纳入9项研究。所有9项研究均对比了PROMs干预组与未使用PROMs的对照组。其中4项研究报告了症状控制方面的改善；1项研究观察到使用PROMs可提升健康相关生活质量（Health-related Quality of Life, HRQoL）。5项研究显示患者满意度较高，但结果无统计学显著性。1项研究发现PROMs的使用有助于促进共享决策。3项研究针对门诊就诊情况进行了报告，结果存在分歧。暂无研究涉及生存/死亡率相关指标。在9项研究中，有2项对比了向患者及/或医护人员提供反馈的PROMs与未提供反馈的PROMs，关于带反馈的PROMs是否能提升临床护理中的患者满意度，现有证据存在分歧。另有3项研究被评定为存在中至高偏倚风险。 研究结论：采用PROMs进行自我症状监测，或可改善症状控制、健康相关生活质量与患者感知，促进共享决策，并减少门诊就诊次数。由于本研究纳入的多数患者为类风湿关节炎（Rheumatoid Arthritis, RA）患者，因此其研究结果的推广性可能局限于类风湿关节炎之外的其他风湿性疾病，未来仍需针对其他风湿性疾病开展更多相关研究。 注册信息：本研究方案已在开放科学框架（OpenSci Framework）注册（https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZU9XM）。