Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31313047›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2019

Patient reported outcomes can improve performance status assessment: a pilot study.

Joan E Broderick, Marcella May, Joseph E Schwartz, Ming Li, Aaron Mejia, Luciano Nocera, Anand Kolatkar, Naoto T Ueno, Sriram Yennu, Jerry S H Lee and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
12.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The association between wearable activity monitor metrics and performance status in oncology: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. How do patients interpret and respond to a novel patient-reported eastern cooperative oncology group performance status (ECOG)?Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. [Sinicization, cross-cultural adjustment and reliability and validity test of the Burnt Hand Outcome Tool].Zhonghua shao shang za zhi = Zhonghua shaoshang zazhi = Chinese journal of burns · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Trade-Offs in Quality-of-Life Assessment Between the Modified Rankin Scale and Neuro-QoL Measures.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2020
    Article
  14. Observational
  15. Observational
  16. 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

15 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Joan E BroderickDornsife Center for Self-Report Science, University of Southern California, 635 Downey Way, Los Angeles, CA, 90089-3332, USA. joan.broderick@usc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1752-0910
Marcella MayDornsife Center for Self-Report Science, University of Southern California, 635 Downey Way, Los Angeles, CA, 90089-3332, USA.
Joseph E SchwartzDepartment of Psychiatry, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, USA.
Ming LiNorris Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA.
Aaron MejiaNorris Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA.
Luciano NoceraDepartment of Computer Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA.
Anand KolatkarDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA.
Naoto T UenoDepartment of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
Sriram YennuDepartment of Palliative Care Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
Jerry S H LeeCenter for Strategic Scientific Initiatives, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, USA.
Sean E HanlonCenter for Strategic Scientific Initiatives, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, USA.
Frankie A Cozzens PhilipsCenter for Strategic Scientific Initiatives, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, USA.
Cyrus ShahabiDepartment of Computer Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA.
Peter KuhnNorris Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA.
Jorge NievaNorris Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA.
University of Southern California · USDivision of Program Coordination Planning and Strategic Initiatives · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USStony Brook University · US

Funding

USC/NORRIS COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER (CORE) SUPPORTP30CA014089 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Fumito Ito · 1985 to 2026
$181.4M
NCI NIH HHS FFP-012016-001NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014089NCI NIH HHS P30CA014089
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient performance status is routinely used in oncology to estimate physical functioning, an important factor in clinical treatment decisions and eligibility for clinical trials. However, validity and reliability data for ratings of performance status have not been optimal. This study recruited oncology patients who were about to begin emetogenic palliative or adjuvant chemotherapy for treatment of solid tumors. We employed actigraphy as the gold standard for physical activity level. Correspondences between actigraphy and oncologists' and patients' ratings of performance status were examined and compared with the correspondences of actigraphy and several patient reported outcomes (PROs). The study was designed to determine feasibility of the measurement approaches and if PROs can improve the accuracy of assessment of performance status.

methodsOncologists and patients made performance status ratings at visit 1. Patients wore an actigraph and entered weekly PROs on a smartphone app. Data for days 1-14 after visit 1 were analyzed. Chart reviews were conducted to tabulate all unexpected medical events across days 1-150.

resultsNeither oncologist nor patient ratings of performance status predicted steps/hour (actigraphy). The PROMIS® Physical Function PRO (average of Days 1, 7, 14) was associated with steps/hour at high (for men) and moderate (for women) levels; the PROMIS® Fatigue PRO predicted steps for men, but not for women. Unexpected medical events occurred in 57% of patients. Only body weight in female patients predicted events; oncologist and patient performance status ratings, steps/hour, and other PROs did not.

conclusionsPROMIS® Physical Function and Fatigue PROs show good correspondence with steps/hour making them easy, useful tools for oncologists to improve their assessment of performance status, especially for male patients. Female patients had lower levels of steps/hour than males and lower correlations among the predictors, suggesting the need for further work to improve performance status assessment in women. Assessment of pre-morbid sedentary behavior alongside current Physical Functioning and Fatigue PROs may allow for a more valid determination of disease-related activity level and performance status.

Indexed as

ActigraphyBody weightOncologyPatient reported outcomesPerformance status

Identifiers

PMID31313047
PMCPMC6635569
OpenAlexW2962182473

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.