ReviewUrologic oncology2019
Key design and analysis principles for quality of life and patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials.
Review in Urologic oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of health-related quality of life and its determinants among COVID-19 intensive care unit survivors.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2023Article
- Health-related quality of life in patients newly diagnosed with prostate cancer: CAPLIFE study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Assessing quality of life after pulmonary embolism: Comparing results from the PEmb-QoL with semistructured interviews.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2022Article
- Article
- Interpretation of Domain Scores on the EPIC-How Does the Domain Score Translate into Functional Outcomes?The Journal of urology · 2019Observational
- Prostate cancer: a tale of two sides.Nature reviews. Urology · 2019Article
- Patient-reported outcomes for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving docetaxel and Atrasentan versus docetaxel and placebo in a randomized phase III clinical trial (SWOG S0421).Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Advances in early detection and therapy have increased the number of prostate cancer survivors, leading to a greater emphasis on examining patient-reported outcomes (PROs). PROs augment clinical outcomes, providing a more comprehensive assessment of the patient experience, including symptoms and quality of life, that may impact the overall evaluation of new therapies. The successful incorporation of PROs into clinical trials requires adherence to key design and analysis principles. We present these principles and argue that adherence to these principles is vital to ensure valid interpretation of clinical trial findings, identify meaningful differences among investigational strategies, and better translate clinical trial results to diverse stakeholders.
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.