ArticleWorld journal of oncology2012
Symptom Clusters Using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System in Patients With Bone Metastases: A Reanalysis Comparing Different Statistical Methods.
Article in World journal of oncology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo determine whether symptom clusters in patients with bone metastases vary when extracted using three different statistical methods. To compare the temporal composition of symptom clusters in responders versus non-responders to palliative radiation treatment.
methodsA previous dataset of 518 bone metastases patients who completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) was used in this study. Clusters derived using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) in our previous study were compared to symptom clusters extracted using Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (HCA) and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). Clusters were derived at baseline, and 1, 2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks after radiation treatment. The patient sample was further divided into responders versus non-responders to radiotherapy. The three statistical methods were performed to identify clusters in the subgroups at each time point.
resultsA complete consensus between HCA, EFA and PCA for the number and composition of symptom clusters was not reached at any time point. Furthermore, little correlation in clusters was found between the three statistical methods despite the use of an identical data set. As expected, different symptom clusters were observed in the responders and non-responders with all three statistical methods. In addition, clusters varied at each time point within each subgroup. Depression and anxiety were consistently found in the same cluster.
conclusionThe quantity, composition, and occurrence of symptom clusters varied based on which statistical method was employed. The use of a common analytical method is necessary for consistency and comparison purposes in future symptom cluster research.
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.