Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28545337›Full record

ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2017

Evaluation of different recall periods for the US National Cancer Institute's PRO-CTCAE.

Tito R Mendoza, Amylou C Dueck, Antonia V Bennett, Sandra A Mitchell, Bryce B Reeve, Thomas M Atkinson, Yuelin Li, Kathleen M Castro, Andrea Denicoff, Lauren J Rogak and 5 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Multidimensional Pain Assessment Tools for Ambulatory and Inpatient Nursing Practice.Pain management nursing : official journal of the American Society of Pain Management Nurses · 2020
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Item comprehension and content coverage of patient-reported outcome measures for long COVID: a qualitative study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  10. Symptoms experienced during the first 4 months of chemotherapy administration: a longitudinal cohort study in an Australian cancer treatment unit.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. 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

15 authors.

Tito R Mendoza1 Department of Symptom Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Amylou C Dueck2 Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA.
Antonia V Bennett3 Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Sandra A Mitchell4 National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA.
Bryce B Reeve3 Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Thomas M Atkinson5 Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Yuelin Li5 Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Kathleen M Castro4 National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA.
Andrea Denicoff4 National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA.
Lauren J Rogak5 Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Richard L Piekarz4 National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA.
Charles S Cleeland1 Department of Symptom Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Jeff A Sloan6 Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Deborah Schrag7 Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Ethan Basch3 Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Virology Research Program (Program 4)P30CA016086 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Deborah F. Tate · 1985 to 2026
$201.5M
NCI NIH HHS HHSN261200800043CNCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016086
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe US National Cancer Institute recently developed the PRO-CTCAE (Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events). PRO-CTCAE is a library of questions for clinical trial participants to self-report symptomatic adverse events (e.g. nausea). The objective of this study is to inform evidence-based selection of a recall period when PRO-CTCAE is included in a trial. We evaluated differences between 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-week recall periods, using daily reporting as the reference.

methodsEnglish-speaking patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy were enrolled at four US cancer centers and affiliated community clinics. Participants completed 27 PRO-CTCAE items electronically daily for 28 days, and then weekly over 4 weeks, using 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-week recall periods. For each recall period, mean differences, effect sizes, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate agreement between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding ratings obtained using longer recall periods (e.g. maximum of daily scores over 7 days vs 1-week recall). Analyses were repeated using the average of daily scores within each recall period rather than the maximum of daily scores.

resultsA total of 127 subjects completed questionnaires (57% male; median age: 57). The median of the 27 mean differences in scores on the PRO-CTCAE 5-point response scale comparing the maximum daily versus the longer recall period (and corresponding effect size) was -0.20 (-0.20) for 1-week recall, -0.36 (-0.31) for 2-week recall, -0.45 (-0.39) for 3-week recall, and -0.47 (-0.40) for 4-week recall. The median intraclass correlation across 27 items between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding longer recall ratings for 1-week recall was 0.70 (range: 0.54-0.82), for 2-week recall was 0.74 (range: 0.58-0.83), for 3-week recall was 0.72 (range: 0.61-0.84), and for 4-week recall was 0.72 (range: 0.64-0.86). Similar results were observed for all analyses using the average of daily scores rather than the maximum of daily scores.

conclusionA 1-week recall corresponds best to daily reporting. Although intraclass correlations remain stable over time, there are small but progressively larger differences between daily and longer recall periods at 2, 3, and 4 weeks, respectively. The preferred recall period for the PRO-CTCAE is the past 7 days, although investigators may opt for recall periods of 2, 3, or 4 weeks with an understanding that there may be some information loss.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsAgedAntineoplastic AgentsChemoradiotherapyDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFemaleHumansMaleMental RecallMiddle AgedNational Cancer Institute (U.S.)Self ReportTime FactorsAntineoplastic Agentsmeasurement propertiespatient-reported outcomesPRO-CTCAERecall periodsymptomatic adverse eventsvalidation

Identifiers

PMID28545337
PMCPMC5448293

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.