ArticleEcancermedicalscience2013
Measuring patient-reported outcomes in advanced gastric cancer.
Article in Ecancermedicalscience, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality of Life Endpoints in Advanced Gastrointestinal Cancer Trials: Systematic Review of Inclusion, Challenges, and Implications (2020-2024).Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)) · 2026Pooled it
- The quality of systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2016Pooled it
- Key considerations to reduce or address respondent burden in patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection.Nature communications · 2022Review
- Longitudinal Analysis of Quality-of-Life Recovery After Gastrectomy for Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2021Article
- Efficacy of olanzapine in symptom relief and quality of life in gastric cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGastric cancer (GC), one of the most common cancers in the world, is often diagnosed at an advanced stage and associated with a poor prognosis. Quality of life and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are important considerations when treating GC patients. The aim of this study was to identify existing PRO instruments that would be appropriate for use in GC trials.
methodsData were obtained from a systematic literature review and interviews with clinical experts. A literature search was conducted using OVID (EMBASE and MEDLINE) and yielded 1,008 abstracts; 92 assessed PROs in an advanced GC.
resultsKey symptoms and functional impacts identified through the literature and expert input included abdominal pain or pain at the site of distant metastases, dysphagia and other symptoms related to eating, and digestive symptoms. The liver and lungs were the most frequent locations of metastases, leading to dyspnea, abdominal fullness, and jaundice. Symptoms related to changes in bowel habits appeared to be more frequent and pronounced in Asian patients, possibly due to the higher prevalence of GC in the body of the stomach in this population. The five most commonly used PRO instruments were identified, but their validity in advanced-stage GC patients remains unclear.
conclusionsThe symptoms and functional impacts identified here should be confirmed with robust input from advanced-stage GC patients. Optimal measurement of PROs in GC should account for patient burden and possible differences between Asian and non-Asian patients.
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.