Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30500993›Full record

ArticleCancer2019

Leveraging patient-reported outcomes data to inform oncology clinical decision making: Introducing the FACE-Q Head and Neck Cancer Module.

Jennifer R Cracchiolo, Anne F Klassen, Danny A Young-Afat, Claudia R Albornoz, Stefan J Cano, Snehal G Patel, Andrea L Pusic, Evan Matros

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The first steps in the development of a cancer-specific patient-reported experience measure item bank (PREM-item bank): towards dynamic evaluation of experiences.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Integration of an enhanced recovery after surgery program for patients undergoing pituitary surgery.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Jennifer R CracchioloHead and Neck Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Anne F KlassenDepartment of Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Danny A Young-AfatDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Claudia R AlbornozDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Las Condes Clinic, Santiago, Chile.
Stefan J CanoModus Outcomes, Letchworth Garden City, United Kingdom.
Snehal G PatelHead and Neck Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Andrea L PusicPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Evan MatrosPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Elisa de Stanchina · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExisting patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess patients with head and neck cancer have methodologic and content deficiencies. Herein, the development of a PROM that meets a range of clinical and research needs across head and neck oncology is described.

methodsAfter development of the conceptual framework, which involved a literature review, semistructured patient interviews, and expert input, patients with head and neck cancer who were treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center were recruited by their surgeon. The FACE-Q Head and Neck Cancer Module was completed by patients in the clinic or was sent by mail. Rasch measurement theory analysis was used for item selection for final scale development and to examine reliability and validity. Scale scores for surgical defect and adjuvant therapy were compared with the cohort average to assess clinical applicability.

resultsThe sample consisted of 219 patients who completed the draft scales. Fourteen independently functioning scales were analyzed. Item fit was good for all 102 items, and all items had ordered thresholds. Scale reliability was acceptable (person separation index was >0.75 for all scales; Cronbach α values were >.87 for all scales; test-retest ranged from 0.86 to 0.96). The scales performed well in a clinically predictable way, demonstrating functional and psychosocial differences across disease sites and with adjuvant therapy.

conclusionsThe scales forming the FACE-Q Head and Neck Cancer Module were found to be clinically relevant and scientifically sound. This new PROM now is validated and ready for use in research and clinical care.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAge DistributionClinical Decision-MakingFemaleHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPatient SatisfactionPsychometricsQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultFACE-Qhead and neck cancerpatient-reported outcomesquality of lifeRasch

Identifiers

PMID30500993
PMCPMC6403001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.