ArticleHead & neck oncology2012
Enhanced patient reported outcome measurement suitable for head and neck cancer follow-up clinics.
Article in Head & neck oncology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It carries an expression of concern. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Patient Concerns Inventory in head and neck oncology: a structured review of its development, validation and clinical implications.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2022Review
- Quality of life after total laryngectomy: impact of different vocal rehabilitation methods in a middle income country.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2020Observational
- Variations in concerns reported on the patient concerns inventory in patients with head and neck cancer from different health settings across the world.Head & neck · 2020Article
- The Patient Concerns Inventory integrated as part of routine head and neck cancer follow-up consultations: frequency, case-mix, and items initiated by the patient.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2018Article
- Using PROMs to guide patients and practitioners through the head and neck cancer journey.Patient related outcome measures · 2017Review
- Same strategy for pitfalls of radiotherapy in different anatomical districts.Lasers in medical science · 2016Article
- 'What will I be like' after my diagnosis of head and neck cancer?European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2015Article
- Diagnostic and therapeutic features associated with modification of quality-of-life's outcomes between one and six months after major surgery for head and neck cancer.Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Expression of concern
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe 'Worse-Stable-Better' (W-S-B) question was introduced to capture patient-perceived change in University of Washington Quality of Life (UW-QOL) domains.
methods202 head and neck cancer patients in remission prospectively completed UW-QOL and Patients Concerns Inventory (PCI). For each UW-QOL domain, patients indicated whether over the last month things had worsened (W), remained stable (S) or were better (B).
results202 patients at 448 attendances selected 1752 PCI items they wanted to discuss in consultation, and 58% (1024/1752) of these were not covered by the UW-QOL. UW-QOL algorithms highlighted another 440 significant problems that the patient did not want to discuss (i.e. the corresponding items on the PCI were not selected).After making allowance for UW-QOL algorithms to identify 'significant problems' and PCI selection of corresponding issues for discussion there remained clear residual and notable variation in W-S-B responses, in particular to identify patients with significant problems that were getting worse, and patients without significant problems that wanted to discuss issues that were getting worse. Changes in mean UW-QOL scores were notably lower for those getting worse on the W-S-B question, typically by 10 or more units a magnitude that suggests clinically important changes in score.
conclusionsThe W-S-B question adds little questionnaire burden and could help to better identify patients who might benefit from intervention. The results of this study suggest that the UW-QOL with the W-S-B modification should be used together with the PCI to allow optimal identification of issues for patient-clinician discussion during routine outpatient clinics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.