Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28453627›Full record

SynthesisEpidemiologic reviews2017

Patient-Reported Physical Function Measures in Cancer Clinical Trials.

Thomas M Atkinson, Angela M Stover, Daniel F Storfer, Rebecca M Saracino, Thomas A D'Agostino, Denise Pergolizzi, Konstantina Matsoukas, Yuelin Li, Ethan Basch

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Epidemiologic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

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

  1. The patient-reported outcomes measurement information systems (PROMIS®) physical function and its derivative measures in adults: a systematic review of content validity.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Physical health-related quality of life trajectories over two years following breast cancer diagnosis in older women: a secondary analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. Evaluation by electronic patient-reported outcomes of cancer survivors' needs and the efficacy of inpatient cancer rehabilitation in different tumor entities.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Preliminary Normative Standards of the Mayo Clinic Esophagectomy CONDUIT Tool.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2019
    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

9 authors.

Thomas M Atkinson
Angela M Stover
Daniel F Storfer
Rebecca M Saracino
Thomas A D'Agostino
Denise Pergolizzi
Konstantina Matsoukas
Yuelin Li
Ethan Basch

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Psychosocial Palliative & Community Research in CancerT32CA009461 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI JENNIFER L HAY, Jamie S. Ostroff · 1985 to 2026
$10.1M
Cancer Training GrantR25CA116339 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BASCH, ETHAN M., REEVE, BRYCE B · 2008 to 2017
$4.0M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS R25 CA116339NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009461
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used to monitor treatment-related symptoms and physical function decrements in cancer clinical trials. As more patients enter survivorship, it is important to capture PRO physical function throughout trials to help restore pretreatment levels of function. We completed a systematic review of PRO physical function measures used in cancer clinical trials and evaluated their psychometric properties on the basis of guidelines from the US Food and Drug Administration. Five databases were searched through October 2015: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Health and Psychosocial Instruments, and Cochrane. From an initial total of 10,233 articles, we identified 108 trials that captured PRO physical function. Within these trials, approximately 67% used the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire and 25% used the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36. Both the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 instruments generically satisfy most Food and Drug Administration requirements, although neither sought direct patient input as part of item development. The newer Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical function short form may be a brief, viable alternative. Clinicians should carefully consider the psychometric properties of these measures when incorporating PRO instrumentation into clinical trial design to provide a more comprehensive understanding of patient function.

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingClinical Trials as TopicHealth StatusPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeHumansNeoplasmsSymptom Assessmentclinical outcome assessmenthealth statusneoplasmspatient-reported outcomes

Identifiers

PMID28453627
PMCPMC5858035

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.