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

Study design.: Cross-sectional study. Objective.: The goal of this study is to translate the English version of the Modified Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (MDQ) into a Dutch version and investigate its clinimetric properties for patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP). Summary of Background Data.: Fritz et al (2001) developed a modified version of the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODI) to assess functional status and named it the MDQ. In this version, a question regarding employment and homemaking ability was substituted for the question related to sex life. Good clinimetric properties for the MDQ were identified but up until now it is not clear whether the clinimetric properties of the MDQ would change if it was translated into a Dutch version. Methods.: Translation of the MDQ into Dutch was done in 4 steps. Test-retest reliability was investigated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) model. Validity was calculated using Pearson correlations and a 2-way analysis of variance for repeated measures. Finally, responsiveness was calculated with the area under the curve (AUC), minimal detectable change (MDC), and the standardized response mean (SRM). Results.: A total of 80 completed questionnaires were collected in 3 different hospitals and a total of 43 patients finished a 9 weeks intervention period, completing the retest. Test-retest reliability was excellent with an ICC of 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74–0.95). To confirm the convergent validity, the MDQ answered all predefined hypothesises (r = −0.65–0.69/P = 0.01–0.00) and good results for construct validity were found (P = 0.02). The MDQ had an AUC of 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47–0.81), an MDC of 8.80 points, and a SRM of 0.65. Conclusion.: The Dutch version of the MDQ shows good clinimetric properties and is shown to be usable in the assessment of the functional status of Dutch-speaking patients with nonspecific CLBP. Level of Evidence: 3

Retrospective Cohort. Our aim was to identify prognostic indicators for success after a back rehabilitation program (BR) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP). Exercise therapy is recommended for patients with nonspecific CLBP. Consensus on the type of exercises is lacking, largely due to heterogeneity in the studied patient samples. The identification of subgroups through the identification of prognostic indicators is therefore needed. To our knowledge, no specific prognostic indicators for BR are described in the literature. We retrospectively analyzed the patient files of 49 nonspecific CLBP patients who followed a BR. Patients were selected based on predefined in- and exclusion criteria. All underwent 43 therapy sessions, two times per week. Primary outcome measure and dependent variable was the change in Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODI) score. Potential predictive variables were tested for association with the primary outcome and consequently entered in a logistic regression model. In this study, the posthoc calculated power was 91%. Based on the change in ODI scores, 24 patients were considered as therapy success (eight points or 50% improvement on change in ODI score) and 25 as therapy failure. Univariate and multiple regression analysis revealed only one significant prognostic indicator: higher scores on the physical function subscale of the SF36 (PF-SF36) corresponded with high risk of therapy failure (odds ratio of 0.791 (95% CI = .662-0.945); sensitivity of 0.79, and specificity of 0.68). Potentially, the preset exercises of the BR in this study design were not appropriate for the identified subgroup. The results of this study should be replicated in a RCT design that conforms to the necessary methodological steps in the identification of prognostic indicators and clinical prediction rules (CPRs).