Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25956189›Full record

SynthesisUrologic oncology2015

Quality of life and symptom assessment in randomized clinical trials of bladder cancer: A systematic review.

Michael A Feuerstein, Marc Jacobs, Alfonso Piciocchi, Bernard Bochner, Andrea Pusic, Peter Fayers, Jane Blazeby, Fabio Efficace, Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements Over Time In Oncology-PROMOTION Registry

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Urologic oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Patient-reported outcomes in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: a mixed-methods systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Validation of the French version of the Wisconsin Quality of Life (WISQOL) questionnaire for patients with nephrolithiasis.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

9 authors.

Michael A FeuersteinDepartment of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. Electronic address: mfeuerste1@nshs.edu.
Marc JacobsDepartment of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center/University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Alfonso PiciocchiData Center and Health Outcomes Research Unit, Italian Group for Adult Hematologic Disease (GIMEMA), Rome, Italy.
Bernard BochnerDepartment of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Andrea PusicDepartment of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Peter FayersInstitute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; Department of Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Technology and Science, Trondheim, Norway.
Jane BlazebyCentre for Surgical Research, School of Social & Community Medicine, University of Bristol and University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
Fabio EfficaceData Center and Health Outcomes Research Unit, Italian Group for Adult Hematologic Disease (GIMEMA), Rome, Italy.
Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements Over Time In Oncology-PROMOTION Registry

Funding

UROLOGY ONCOLOGY RESEARCH TRAINING GRANTT32CA082088 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Brett Stewart Carver · 1999 to 2026
$7.1M
Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1NCI NIH HHS T32 CA082088NCI NIH HHS T32CA082088
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPatient-reported outcomes (PRO) help patients, caretakers, clinicians, and policy makers make informed decisions regarding treatment effectiveness. Our objective was to assess the quality of PRO reporting and methodological strengths and weaknesses in randomized controlled trials (RCT) in bladder cancer.

methodsA systematic literature search of bladder cancer RCT published between January 2004 and March 2014 was performed. Relevant studies were evaluated using a predetermined extraction form that included trial demographics, clinical and PRO characteristics, and standards of PRO reporting based on recommendations of the International Society for Quality of Life Research.

resultsIn total, 9 RCTs enrolling 1,237 patients were evaluated. All studies were in patients with nonmetastatic disease. In 5 RCTs, a PRO was the primary end point. Most RCTs did not report the mode of administration of the PRO instrument or the methods of collecting data. No RCT addressed the statistical approaches for missing data.

conclusionsWe found that few RCTs in bladder cancer report PRO as an outcome. Efforts to expand PRO reporting to more RCTs and improve the quality of PRO reporting according to recognized standards are necessary for facilitating clinical decision making.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingClinical Trials as TopicHumansQuality of LifeSelf ReportTreatment OutcomeUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsBladder cancerClinical decision makingClinical trialsPatient-reported outcomesQuality of life

Identifiers

PMID25956189
PMCPMC4466160

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.