ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2019
Patient-reported outcomes in lung and esophageal cancer.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Are there different phenotypes of thoracic surgery patients? A latent class analysis of pretreatment patient-reported outcomes.JTCVS open · 2025Article
- Lung Cancer: New Directions in Senior Patients Assessment.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Long-term patient-reported outcomes after non-small cell lung cancer resection.The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2022Article
- Evaluating the Content Validity, Clarity, and Relevance of Two Patient-Reported Outcomes for Use With Adults WithJTO clinical and research reports · 2021Article
- Patient reported outcomes: integration into clinical practices.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Review
- Choosing the right survey-patient reported outcomes in esophageal surgery.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Review
- Evaluating the Utility of Smartphone-Based Sensor Assessments in Persons With Multiple Sclerosis in the Real-World Using an App (elevateMS): Observational, Prospective Pilot Digital Health Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Carcinomas of the lung and esophagus are associated with significant disease and treatment related morbidity. Measuring patients' self-perceived notion of their health-related quality of life (HRQOL), throughout the course of illness, is central to the delivery of comprehensive, patient-centered care. This article reviews commonly used HRQOL instruments in thoracic surgery and discusses the integral role of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in comparative effectiveness research and prognostication in the realm of lung and esophageal cancer. We also highlight challenges and future directions for widespread implementation of PROs into clinical and research practice.
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.