ArticleTranslational lung cancer research2018
The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma: a descriptive literature survey.
Article in Translational lung cancer research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMalignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) remains a highly symptomatic and aggressive malignancy. The treatment options are for most patients limited to palliative chemotherapy and best supportive care. Therefore, the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is recommended for the improvement of the quality of care. The aim of this literature survey is to provide an up to date review of the use of PROMs in mesothelioma. A concise comparison is made of the identified instruments.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science and Google Scholar for the use of PROMs in MPM. Quality of the study and risk of bias were assessed using the appraisal tools recommended by the Dutch Cochrane Center.
resultsA total of 31 articles on PROMs in MPM were identified that met the inclusion criteria and a total of 14 instruments. The instruments are categorized in generic (n=2), cancer-specific (n=4), lung cancer-specific (n=3), mesothelioma-specific (n=2) and symptom-specific (n=3). They were mostly used in clinical trials.
conclusionsPROMs have the potential to improve the management of MPM. No particular instrument is specifically recommended, although there is a preference for patient-reported disease-specific instruments encompassing the concept of health-related quality of life (hrQoL) and relevant symptoms. Such instruments are the EORTC QLQ-LC13, LCSS-Meso and FACT-L, which measure the impact of malignant mesothelioma and its treatment on patients. Assessments should be made on baseline and post-treatment. The frequency of assessments should be further evaluated in this population.
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.