ArticleCureus2017
Assessment and Improvement of Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Treatment for Head and Neck Cancer.
Article in Cureus, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical and psychosocial factors associated with quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer: an analytical cross-sectional study from a lower-middle-income country.BMC psychology · 2023Article
- Article
- Fatigue in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing radiation therapy: a prospective study.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2019Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe compared the pre and post-treatment quality of life in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients and identified factors that could improve the quality of life in such patients. Methods: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) questionnaire was administered to 84 patients' pre and post-treatment. Patients who had non-metastatic, measurable, and untreated HNCs were invited, provided that their age was below 80 years. We did not discriminate based on treatment modality, stage of cancer, or co-morbidities. Patients who were mentally incapacitated, with secondary or recurrent HNC, distant metastasis, skin cancer, congenital anomaly of the head and neck, chronic illness, or any previous or current psychiatric illness were excluded from the study. A high mean score on the functional scale and a low score on symptom scale signify a better quality of life. We used the dependent t-test to compare pre and post-treatment scores.
resultsWe found no statistically significant differences in any variables, except the four symptom scales of diarrhoea, constipation, nausea/vomiting, and financial difficulty. All of these variables had increased mean scores with p values of < 0.001. Also, we found no statistical significance (p = 0.250) when comparing the pre-treatment (59.4 ± 18.3) and post-treatment (61.2 ± 16.2) scores for the global health status.
conclusionWe found no improvement in the quality of life in HNC patients despite intervention. In fact, diarrhoea, constipation, nausea/vomiting, and financial difficulty of these patients worsened post-treatment.
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.