ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2017
Evaluation of different recall periods for the US National Cancer Institute's PRO-CTCAE.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
56 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Media-induced indirect trauma for adolescents: a COSMIN-based systematic review of measurement instruments and their psychometric suitability.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic Review of the Effect of a One-Day Versus Seven-Day Recall Duration on Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs).The patient · 2023Pooled it
- Multidimensional Pain Assessment Tools for Ambulatory and Inpatient Nursing Practice.Pain management nursing : official journal of the American Society of Pain Management Nurses · 2020Pooled it
- Effectiveness of a Multifaceted Intervention (TEMP) for Prevention of Occupational Heat-Related Illness among Outdoor Workers in the Power Grid Industry: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.Environmental health perspectives · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Effects of a change in recall period on reporting severe symptoms: an analysis of a pragmatic multisite trial.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2024Trial
- Comparison of weekly and daily recall of pain as an endpoint in a randomized phase 3 trial of cabozantinib for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2021Trial
- Development of a Patient-reported Outcome Measure for Adults with Lower Extremity Malignancies: The LIMB-Q ONC.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Carers' interpretation of the recall period and perspective-taking when completing the EQ health and wellbeing instrument (EQ-HWB)-9 as proxies for people with dementia: a think-aloud study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Article
- Accuracy of patient, care partner, and clinician health care contact day recall.The oncologist · 2026Article
- Constructing dyadic management behavioral personas for patient-caregiver dyads in ambulatory chemotherapy: A qualitative study.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2025Article
- Review
- Review
- Use of patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events in oncology clinical trials.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
- Concordance between patient-reported outcomes and CTCAE clinician-reported toxicities during outpatient chemotherapy courses: a retrospective cohort study in routine care.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2025Article
- Statistical properties of items and summary scores from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAEClinical trials (London, England) · 2025Observational
- Electronic patient-reported outcomes as digital therapeutics for patients with cancer: a narrative review of current practices and future directions.International journal of clinical oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.