Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29732482›Full record

SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2018

A systematic review of the measurement properties of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer In-patient Satisfaction with Care Questionnaire, the EORTC IN-PATSAT32.

Koen I Neijenhuijs, Femke Jansen, Neil K Aaronson, Anne Brédart, Mogens Groenvold, Bernhard Holzner, Caroline B Terwee, Pim Cuijpers, Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Factors contributing to satisfaction with care in cancer outpatients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Article
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

9 authors.

Koen I NeijenhuijsDepartment of Clinical, Neuro- and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Femke JansenCancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Neil K AaronsonDivision of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Anne BrédartPsycho-Oncology Unit, Institut Curie, Paris, France.
Mogens GroenvoldThe Research Unit, Department of Palliative Medicine, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, NV, Denmark.
Bernhard HolznerDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, CL-Service, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Caroline B TerweeDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Pim CuijpersDepartment of Clinical, Neuro- and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Irma M Verdonck-de LeeuwDepartment of Clinical, Neuro- and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. IM.Verdonck@vumc.nl.

Funding

KWF Kankerbestrijding VUP 2014-7202
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe EORTC IN-PATSAT32 is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to assess cancer patients' satisfaction with in-patient health care. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the initial good measurement properties of the IN-PATSAT32 are confirmed in new studies.

methodsWithin the scope of a larger systematic review study (Prospero ID 42017057237), a systematic search was performed of Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for studies that investigated measurement properties of the IN-PATSAT32 up to July 2017. Study quality was assessed, data were extracted, and synthesized according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology.

resultsNine studies were included in this review. The evidence on reliability and construct validity were rated as sufficient and of the quality of the evidence as moderate. The evidence on structural validity was rated as insufficient and of low quality. The evidence on internal consistency was indeterminate. Measurement error, responsiveness, criterion validity, and cross-cultural validity were not reported in the included studies. Measurement error could be calculated for two studies and was judged indeterminate.

conclusionIn summary, the IN-PATSAT32 performs as expected with respect to reliability and construct validity. No firm conclusions can be made yet whether the IN-PATSAT32 also performs as well with respect to structural validity and internal consistency. Further research on these measurement properties of the PROM is therefore needed as well as on measurement error, responsiveness, criterion validity, and cross-cultural validity. For future studies, it is recommended to take the COSMIN methodology into account.

Indexed as

EuropeHumansNeoplasmsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPatient SatisfactionPsychometricsQualitative ResearchSurveys and QuestionnairesCancerEORTCIN-PATSAT32Patient-reported outcome measurePatient satisfactionPROMPsychometryReliabilitySystematic reviewValidity

Identifiers

PMID29732482
PMCPMC6018571

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.