Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25749490›Full record

ArticleEuropean 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 Surgery2016

A single-item screening question for fear of recurrence in head and neck cancer.

Simon N Rogers, Ben Cross, Cyrus Talwar, Derek Lowe, Gerry Humphris

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in 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, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Improving quality of life through the routine use of the patient concerns inventory for head and neck cancer patients: baseline results in a cluster preference randomised controlled trial.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 · 2020
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Balancing patients' fears of recurrence and fears of COVID-19 when considering their preference for review consultations.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 · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Is social inequality related to different patient concerns in routine oral cancer follow-up clinics?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 · 2017
    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

5 authors.

Simon N RogersEvidence-Based Practice Research Centre (EPRC), Faculty of Health and Social Care, Edge Hill University, St Helens Road, Ormskirk, L39 4QP, UK. snrogers.aintree@gmail.com.
Ben CrossLiverpool University, Cedar House, Ashton Street, Liverpool, L69 3GE, UK.
Cyrus TalwarLiverpool University, Cedar House, Ashton Street, Liverpool, L69 3GE, UK.
Derek LoweEvidence-Based Practice Research Centre (EPRC), Faculty of Health and Social Care, Edge Hill University, St Helens Road, Ormskirk, L39 4QP, UK.
Gerry HumphrisHealth Psychology, Bute Medical School, University of St Andrews, Westburn Lane, St Andrews, Fife, Scotland, KY16 8HX, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fear of recurrence (FoR) is the most frequent concern patients wish to discuss in head and neck review clinics. The aim of the study was to design a simple screening question on fear of recurrence to be incorporated into the University of Washington Quality of Life Questionnaire (UW-QOLv4), for use in clinical practice. A cross-sectional survey comprising 528 patients was conducted. 11 % selected the two most severe FoR categories. FoR responses correlated strongly (Spearman r s = -0.82) with the mean score of the seven items of the Fear of Recurrence Questionnaire. There was also a strong association with anxiety and mood dysfunction as measured from the UW-QOL, and with overall QOL. Patients more affected by FoR tended to be younger and post-radiotherapy or chemotherapy. The FoR screening question may be a useful addition to the UW-QOLv4 to help identify patients with significant FoR to receive extra support.

Indexed as

AnxietyFearQuality of LifeAgedCarcinoma, Squamous CellCross-Sectional StudiesDisease ManagementFemaleHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalSquamous Cell Carcinoma of Head and NeckSurveys and QuestionnairesSurvivorsFear of recurrenceHead and neck cancerHealth-related quality of lifePatient-reported outcomesUW-QOL

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.