Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24638118›Full record

ArticleMedical care2014

Validation of disability status, a claims-based measure of functional status for cancer treatment and outcomes studies.

Amy J Davidoff, Lisa D Gardner, Ilene H Zuckerman, Franklin Hendrick, Xuehua Ke, Martin J Edelman

Open access · greenAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medical care, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. The Real-World Lifetime Economic Burden of Urothelial Carcinoma by Stage at Diagnosis.Journal of clinical pathways : the foundation of value-based care · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Amy J Davidoff*Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD †Epidemiology and Public Health, School of Medicine ‡IMPAQ International, LLC, Columbia, MD §Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD ∥School of Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.
Lisa D Gardner
Ilene H Zuckerman
Franklin Hendrick
Xuehua Ke
Martin J Edelman
University of Maryland, Baltimore · USAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality · USImpaq International (United States) · USUniversity of New Mexico · US

Funding

Comparative Effectiveness: Erythropoietic Stimulating Agents in Treatment of MDSRC1CA145831 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI DAVIDOFF, AMY J · 2009 to 2010
$774k
Patient performance status: prediction model development and validationR21CA137283 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI DAVIDOFF, AMY J · 2009 to 2010
$371k
NCI NIH HHS R21 CA137283NCI NIH HHS RC1 CA145831
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn prior research, we developed a claims-based prediction model for poor patient disability status (DS), a proxy measure for performance status, commonly used by oncologists to summarize patient functional status and assess ability of a patient to tolerate aggressive treatment. In this study, we implemented and validated the DS measure in 4 cohorts of cancer patients: early and advanced non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC), stage IV estrogen receptor-negative (ER-) breast cancer, and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). DATA AND

methodsSEER-Medicare data (1999-2007) for the 4 cohorts of cancer patients. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression tested the association of the DS measure with designated cancer-directed treatments: early NSCLC (surgery), advanced NSCLC (chemotherapy), stage IV ER- breast cancer (chemotherapy), and MDS (erythropoiesis-stimulating agents). Treatment model fit was compared across model iterations.

resultsIn both unadjusted and adjusted results, predicted poor DS was strongly associated with a lower likelihood of cancer treatment receipt in all 4 cohorts [early NSCLC (N=20,280), advanced NSCLC (N=31,341), stage IV ER- breast cancer (N=1519), and MDS (N=6058)] independent of other patient, contextual, and disease characteristics, as well as the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Inclusion of the DS measure into models already controlling for other variables did not significantly improve model fit across the cohorts.

conclusionsThe DS measure is a significant independent predictor of cancer-directed treatment. Small changes in model fit associated with both DS and the Charlson Comorbidity Index suggest that unobserved factors continue to play a role in determining cancer treatments.

Indexed as

Disability EvaluationHealth Status IndicatorsActivities of Daily LivingAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungCohort StudiesEligibility DeterminationFemaleHumansInsurance Claim ReviewLikelihood FunctionsLung NeoplasmsMaleMedicare

Identifiers

PMID24638118
PMCPMC4256940
OpenAlexW1974712941

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.