ReviewLung cancer management2016
Measurement of quality of life in second-line patients with advanced NSCLC without targetable mutations: a review.
Review in Lung cancer management, 2016. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of Quality of Life in Daily Functioning, Communication with Care Teams, and Treatment Decisions in Patients withJTO clinical and research reports · 2025Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quality of life (QoL) is important to cancer patients and is increasingly included as a trial end point. The methodologies/findings of randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of second-line treatments approved for use in the EU in patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC, without known targetable mutations, were evaluated. Seven trials were identified; five compared active treatments and two compared active treatment to placebo. Methodologies used and reporting varied. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer lung cancer questionnaire was the most commonly used assessment method (n = 4). There was no evidence to suggest differences in QoL between active treatments. Consistent and appropriate use of standard QoL instruments in future would increase the reliability of results and their applicability to clinical decision-making.
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.