Trial reportBMC urology2019
Agreement between patient reported outcomes and clinical reports after radical prostatectomy - a prospective longitudinal study.
Trial report in BMC urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient-reported functional outcome measures and treatment choice for prostate cancer.BMC urology · 2022Article
- An implementation study of electronic assessment of patient-reported outcomes in inpatient radiation oncology.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2022Article
- Experience Measures after Radical Prostatectomy: A Register-Based Study Evaluating the Association between Patient-Reported Symptoms and Quality of Information.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Prospective comparative trial on nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy using a robot-assisted versus laparoscopic technique: expectation versus satisfaction and impact on surgical margins.Central European journal of urology · 2021Article
- Risk of Recurrent Disease 6 Years After Open or Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy in the Prospective Controlled Trial LAPPRO.European urology open science · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn clinical research information can be retrieved through various sources. The aim is to evaluate the agreement between answers in patient questionnaires and clinical reports in a study of patients after radical prostatectomy and patient characteristics associated with agreement between these two data sources.
methodsIn the prospective non-randomized longitudinal trial LAParoscopic Prostatectomy Robot Open (LAPPRO) 4003 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy at 14 centers in Sweden were followed. Analysis of agreement is made using a variety of methods, including the recently proposed Gwet's AC1, which enables us to handle the limitations of Cohen's Kappa where agreement depends on the underlying prevalence.
resultsThe incidence of postoperative events was consistently reported higher by the patient compared with the clinical reports for all outcomes. Agreement regarding the absence of events (negative agreement) was consistently higher than agreement regarding events (positive agreement) for all outcome variables. Overall impression of agreement depends on which measure used for the assessment. The previously reported desirable properties of Gwet's AC1 as well as the patient characteristics associated with agreement were confirmed.
conclusionThe differences in incidence and agreement across the different variables and time points highlight the importance of carefully assessing which source of information to use in clinical research.
trial registrationISRCTN06393679 ( www.isrctn.com ). Date of registration: 07/02/2008. Retrospectively registered.
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.