ArticleJournal of global oncology2019
Linguistic Validation of the US National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events in Korean.
Article in Journal of global oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of Acupotomy Combined with Epidural Steroid Injection for Lumbosacral Radiculopathy: A Randomized Controlled Pragmatic Pilot Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Trial
- Efficacy of the PRO-CTCAE mobile application for improving patient participation in symptom management during cancer treatment: a randomized controlled trial.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Trial
- Which Chemotherapy-Related Terms Were Difficult for Cancer Patients, and Who Would Have the Most Difficulties?Cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- Article
- Surveillance of Symptom Burden Using the Patient-Reported Outcome Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events in Patients With Various Types of Cancers During Chemoradiation Therapy: Real-World Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2023Article
- Comparison of Clinical Efficacy and Safety between 70-150 µm and 100-300 µm Doxorubicin Drug-Eluting Bead Transarterial Chemoembolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Who is more likely to adopt and comply with the electronic patient-reported outcome measure (ePROM) mobile application? A real-world study with cancer patients undergoing active treatment.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Article
- Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System: Translation and Linguistic Validation of Six Profile Domains for Korean Adults.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Article
- Detection of early changes in the muscle properties of the pectoralis major in breast cancer patients treated with radiotherapy using a handheld myotonometer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Article
- Dutch translation and linguistic validation of the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE™).Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2020Article
- Evaluation of the 5-fluorouracil plasma level in patients with colorectal cancer undergoing continuous infusion chemotherapy.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to translate and linguistically validate a Korean-language version of the US National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).
methodsAll 124 PRO-CTCAE items were translated into Korean (PRO-CTCAE-Korean) using International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research best practices and linguistically validated in a diverse sample of patients undergoing cancer treatment (n = 120) to determine whether the Korean translation captured the original concepts. During the cognitive interviews, participants first completed approximately 60 PRO-CTCAE-Korean questions and were then interviewed to evaluate the conceptual equivalence of the translation to the original PRO-CTCAE English-language source. Interview probes addressed comprehension, clarity, and ease of judgement. Three rounds of interviews were conducted. Items that met the a priori threshold of 10% or more of respondents with comprehension difficulties were considered for rephrasing and retesting.
resultsA majority of PRO-CTCAE-Korean items were well comprehended in round 1; 14 items posed comprehension difficulties for at least 10% of respondents in round 1. Four symptom terms (mouth and throat sores, feeling like nothing could cheer you up, frequent urination, and pain, swelling, redness at drug injection or intravenous insertion site) were revised and retested in rounds 2 and 3. For the other 10 symptom terms, no suitable alternative phrasing was identified, and the terms were retested in rounds 2 and 3. After rounds 2 and 3, no item presented difficulties in 20% or more of participants.
conclusionPRO-CTCAE-Korean has been linguistically validated for use in Korean-speaking populations. Quantitative evaluation of this new measure to establish its measurement properties and responsiveness in Korean speakers undergoing cancer treatment is in progress.
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.