ArticleAdvances in breast cancer research2013
Symptom Cluster Research in Women with Breast Cancer: A Comparison of Three Subgrouping Techniques.
Article in Advances in breast cancer research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differences in Circulating Extracellular Vesicle and Soluble Cytokines in Older Versus Younger Breast Cancer Patients With Distinct Symptom Profiles.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Review
- Differences in symptom clusters before and twelve months after breast cancer surgery.European journal of oncology nursing : the official journal of European Oncology Nursing Society · 2018Article
- Cytokine Gene Polymorphisms Associated With Symptom Clusters in Oncology Patients Undergoing Radiation Therapy.Journal of pain and symptom management · 2017Article
- Advancing Symptom Science Through Symptom Cluster Research: Expert Panel Proceedings and Recommendations.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2017Review
- Two Methods for Calculating Symptom Cluster Scores.Nursing researchArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo examine how symptom cluster subgroups defined by extreme discordant composite scores, cut-off scores, or a median split influence statistical associations with peripheral cytokine levels in women with breast cancer.
backgroundSystemic cytokine dysregulation has been posited as a potential biological mechanism underlying symptom clusters in women with breast cancer. Symptom characteristics may play an important role in identifying cytokines of significant etiological importance, however, there is no consensus regarding the ideal subgrouping technique to use.
designA secondary analysis of data collected from a cross-sectional descriptive study of women with stage I-II breast cancer was used to examine and compare the relationships between peripheral cytokine levels and symptom subgroups defined by extreme discordant composite scores, cut-off scores, or a median split.
methodsParticipant symptom scores were transformed into a composite score to account for variability in symptom intensity, frequency and interference. Cytokine levels in subgroups defined by composite scores within the highest and lowest 20% were contrasted with those composed from cut-off scores and a median split.
resultsSubgroups defined by the composite score or cut-off scores resulted in similar statistical relationships with cytokine levels in contrast to the median split technique. The use of a median split for evaluating relationships between symptoms clusters and cytokine levels may increase the risk of a type I error.
conclusionComposite and cut-off scores represent best techniques for defining symptom cluster subgroups in women with breast cancer. Using a consistent approach to defining symptom clusters across studies may assist in identifying relevant biological mechanisms.
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.