Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet #Preprint #PeerReviewMe: Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint. Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn. Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period. Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author). Background: New methods for assessing diet in research are being developed to address the limitations of traditional dietary assessment methods. Mobile device–assisted ecological momentary diet assessment (mEMDA) is a new dietary assessment method that has not yet been optimized and has the potential to minimize recall biases and participant burden while maximizing ecological validity. There have been limited efforts to characterize the use of mEMDA in behavioral research settings. Objective: The aims of this study were to summarize mEMDA protocols used in research to date, to characterize key aspects of these assessment approaches, and to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of mEMDA compared with the traditional dietary assessment methods as well as implications for future mEMDA research. Methods: Studies that used mobile devices and described mEMDA protocols to assess dietary intake were included. Data were extracted according to Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Cochrane guidelines and then synthesized narratively. Results: The review included 20 studies with unique mEMDA protocols. Of these, 50% (10/20) used participant-initiated reports of intake at eating events (event-contingent mEMDA), and 50% (10/20) used researcher-initiated prompts requesting that participants report recent dietary intake (signal-contingent mEMDA). A majority of the study protocols (60%, 12/20) enabled participants to use mobile phones to report dietary data. Event-contingent mEMDA protocols most commonly assessed diet in real time, used dietary records for data collection (60%, 6/10), and provided estimates of energy and nutrient intake (60%, 6/10). All signal-contingent mEMDA protocols used a near real-time recall approach with unannounced (ie, random) abbreviated diet surveys. Most signal-contingent protocols (70%, 7/10) assessed the frequency with which (targeted) foods or food groups were consumed. Relatively few (30%, 6/20) studies compared mEMDA with the traditional dietary assessment methods. Conclusions: This review demonstrates that mEMDA has the potential to reduce participant burden and recall bias, thus advancing the field beyond current dietary assessment methods while maximizing ecological validity.

This is a longitudinal prospective study that tracked multiple symptom burden and functioning status for bladder cancer (BLC) patients for 3 months post-radical cystectomy at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, using a validated disease-specific patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) tool, the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (the MDASI-PeriOp-BLC). The feasibility of collecting an objective measure for physical functioning, using “Timed Up & Go test” (TUGT) and PRO scores at baseline, discharge and end of study, was tested. Patients (n = 52) received care under an ERAS pathway. The more severe scores of fatigue, sleep disturbance, distress, drowsiness, frequent urination and urinary urgency at baseline predicted poor functional recovery postoperatively (OR = 1.661, 1.039–2.655, p = 0.034); other more severe symptoms at discharge (pain, fatigue, sleep disturbance, lack of appetite, drowsiness, bloating/abdominal tightness) predicted poor functional recovery (OR = 1.697, 1.114–2.584, p = 0.014) postoperatively. Compliance rates at preoperative, discharge and end of study were 100%, 79% and 77%, while TUGT completion rates were 88%, 54% and 13%, respectively. This prospective study found that more severe symptom burden at baseline and discharge is associated with poor functional recovery post-radical cystectomy for BLC. The collection of PROs is more feasible than using performance measures (TUGT) of function following radical cystectomy.

Objectives: We developed and validated a disease-specific tool for perioperative patient-reported outcomes assessment for bladder cancer (BLC) patients undergoing radical cystectomy, The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (the MDASI-PeriOp-BLC). Methods: Patients who underwent radical cystectomy were recruited. We used qualitative interviews and experts’ input to generate disease/treatment-specific items of the MDASI-PeriOp-BLC module; conducted item reduction; examined the psychometric properties of the resultant items for reliability, validity, and clinical interpretability; and conducted cognitive debriefing interviews to assess the tool’s performance. Results: A total of 150 BLC patients contributed to psychometric validation. We identified and defined eight BLC-specific module items (blood in urine, leaking urine, frequent urination, urinary urgency, burning with urination, constipation, changes in sexual function, and stomal problems). We included those 8 items in addition to 13 MDASI core symptoms and 6 interference items to form the MDASI-PeriOp-BLC module. Cronbach alphas were 0.89 and 0.90 for the 21 severity items and the 6 interference items, respectively. Test–retest reliability (intra-class correlation) was 0.92 for the 21 severity items. The MDASI-PeriOp-BLC module significantly differentiated the patients by performance status (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: The MDASI-PeriOp-BLC is a valid, reliable, and concise tool for monitoring symptom burden during perioperative care in BLC patients undergoing radical cystectomy.

Background/Objectives. Decades of research have failed to uncover effective approaches to prevent chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN), a common side effect of neurotoxic chemotherapy. Increased interest in placebo response as a potentially under-recognized confounder in CIPN trials was recently sparked by the results of a multisite NCI-funded phase II-III CIPN prevention study of duloxetine, a promising serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor that enhances pain-inhibitory mechanisms within the central nervous system. Study findings revealed high and nearly equivalent response rates in three randomized treatment groups—little to no CIPN was reported by 65.2%, 66.0%, and 68.0% of study participants who received duloxetine 30 mg, 60 mg, or placebo treatment, respectively. Methods. We performed a meta-analysis of placebo response rates from seven randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials conducted over the past 20 years and comprising 191 placebo participants that were specifically testing interventions for oxaliplatin- and paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy and that serially collected patient responses on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire for Chemotherapy-Induced Neuropathy questionnaire. Additionally, we sought to identify trial- and patient-specific factors that predicted higher placebo response rates from a participant-level pooled analysis. Results. The placebo response rate was 10.0% [95% CI: 5.8%, 16.6%] when response was defined more conservatively as patients reporting no neuropathy at all. When the placebo response was defined more broadly based on patients reporting no or a little neuropathy, the placebo response rate was higher (39.6% [95% CI: 27.4%, 53.2%]). Male participants, receipt of oxaliplatin, and a 2:1 randomization ratio favoring the intervention arm were individually associated with a higher placebo response. Conclusions. High placebo response rates can threaten scientific progress toward identifying effective treatments for cancer treatment-associated side effects, like CIPN. Careful attention to study design factors, participant eligibility, and patient and research staff expectations may help to minimize placebo response rates in future CIPN intervention studies.