Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28374090›Full record

SynthesisJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2017

Cancer survivorship monitoring systems for the collection of patient-reported outcomes: a systematic narrative review of international approaches.

N Corsini, J Fish, I Ramsey, G Sharplin, I Flight, R Damarell, B Wiggins, C Wilson, D Roder, M Eckert

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A randomised online experimental study to compare responses to brief and extended surveys of health-related quality of life and psychosocial outcomes among women with breast cancer.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2021
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Challenges and opportunities for using population health data to investigate cancer survivors' quality of life in Australia.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

10 authors.

N CorsiniCancer Council SA, 202 Greenhill Rd, Eastwood, SA, 5063, Australia. ncorsini@cancersa.org.au.
J FishCancer Council SA, 202 Greenhill Rd, Eastwood, SA, 5063, Australia.
I RamseyCancer Council SA, 202 Greenhill Rd, Eastwood, SA, 5063, Australia.
G SharplinCancer Council SA, 202 Greenhill Rd, Eastwood, SA, 5063, Australia.
I FlightCancer Council SA, 202 Greenhill Rd, Eastwood, SA, 5063, Australia.
R DamarellFlinders University of South Australia, Sturt Rd, Bedford Park, SA, 5042, Australia.
B WigginsCancer Council SA, 202 Greenhill Rd, Eastwood, SA, 5063, Australia.
C WilsonCancer Council SA, 202 Greenhill Rd, Eastwood, SA, 5063, Australia.
D RoderUniversity of South Australia, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
M EckertCancer Council SA, 202 Greenhill Rd, Eastwood, SA, 5063, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis systematic narrative review describes and compares the development and operational approaches of monitoring systems without a clinical care component that collect patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from cancer survivors.

methodsSearches were conducted using Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus, Joanna Briggs Institute EBP Database and Google Scholar (Advanced). Sources of grey literature and websites of relevant organisations were also searched for relevant published and unpublished material. Articles were included if they described the development (including piloting) of monitoring systems with ongoing recruitment that collect PRO at more than one time point, from 6 months post-diagnosis onward.

resultsThe initial searches returned 7290 unique citations. After screening titles and abstracts, 39 full-text articles were retrieved for more detailed examination. Eleven articles were included in the review, representing seven international monitoring systems. Systems varied in their scope, implementation process, governance and administration, recruitment and data collection, consent rates, PRO collection, use of PRO and translation strategies.

conclusionsThe most suitable approach for setting-up and implementing a monitoring system for ongoing surveillance will differ depending on the unique requirements, aims and level of resourcing available within a particular context. Better specification and consideration of how PRO data will be used, for what purpose, and by whom, is required to inform effective translational strategies to improve outcomes for cancer survivors. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The findings from this review may inform the future development of survivorship monitoring systems in varied environments, which in turn may improve practices that lead to better outcomes for survivors.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresHumansNeoplasmsSurvival RateSurvivorsCancer survivorshipOncologyPatient-reported outcomesQuality of lifeRegistrySurveillance

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.